Judicial and Court Statistics 2010 · High Court. All family matters in England and Wales are dealt with at either Family : Proceedings Courts (which are part of the magistrates’

Judicialand Court Statistics 2010

Published 30 June 2011

Revised July 2011

Contents

Introductory Note i

An outline of the court structure in England and Wales iii

Background on the court system in England and Wales iv

Main findings 1

1. County courts (civil non-family) 8

2. Family matters 38

3. Magistrates’ courts 62

4. The Crown Court 84

5. High Court – Chancery Division 118

6. High Court – Queen’s Bench Division 128

7. Appellate Courts 140

8. The Mental Capacity Act 162

9. Offices of the Supreme Court 172

10. The Judiciary 178

11. Assessment of litigation costs, and publicly funded legal services 188

Annex A: Data sources and data quality 196

Glossary 204

Explanatory notes 212

Contacts 214

Judicial and Court Statistics 2010 | Introductory Note

i

Introductory Note

This report presents statistics on judicial and court activity in England and Wales in 2010. It was formally entitled Judicial Statistics for the 2005 edition and earlier years, which was published by the Department for Constitutional Affairs and its predecessors.

Report structure

This report provides statistics on activity in the county, family, Crown and magistrates’ courts of England and Wales along with statistics on the work of the High Court, Court of Appeal, UK Supreme Court and some associated offices and agencies, such as the Court of Protection, the Office of the Public Guardian and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Chapters 1 to 7 each start with a commentary section which includes a brief description of the function, constitution and jurisdiction of the relevant court type, an explanation of some of the procedures involved, and description of the latest statistics and trends. The chapters conclude with statistical tables. Chapter 8 provides summary statistics on casework of the Court of Protection and the Office of the Public Guardian, while Chapter 9 contains casework data relating to the Offices of the Supreme Court. Chapters 10 and 11 deal with the judiciary and assessment of litigation costs and publicly funded legal services, respectively.

The statistics give a summary overview of the volume of cases dealt with by these courts and offices over time, broken down for the main types of case involved. The statistics are used to monitor court workloads, to assist in the development of policy, and their subsequent monitoring and evaluation.

Annex A provides summary information on data sources for the figures given in this report, along with a brief discussion on data quality and highlighting any significant revisions compared to previously published statistics. There is also a Glossary section which provides brief definitions for some of the main terms used in this report.

Information about statistical revisions, forthcoming changes and the symbols and conventions used in the bulletin are given in the Explanatory Notes section.


ii

Other court statistics published by the Ministry of Justice

Provisional statistics on many aspects of activity in the county, family, Crown and magistrates’ courts of England and Wales in 2010 have already been published by the Ministry of Justice in the statistical bulletin Court Statistics Quarterly. The statistics presented in Judicial and Court Statistics constitute final figures for 2010, and show more detailed tables than in the quarterly report. Most revisions compared to the figures already published in Court Statistics Quarterly reflect updates to administrative data sources since figures were first compiled. This report is published at the same time as the Q1 (January to March) 2011 edition of Court Statistics Quarterly.

These statistical bulletins are available from the Ministry of Justice website at:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/courts-and-sentencing/index.htm

The Ministry of Justice also publishes quarterly statistical reports focusing on a particular aspect of court workload in detail, covering statistics on the timeliness of criminal cases in the magistrates’ courts (summary statistics also shown in Chapter 3 of this report), mortgage and landlord possession actions in the county courts, and company winding-up and bankruptcy petitions in the county courts. These bulletins are also available from the Ministry of Justice website at, respectively:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/criminal-justice/index.htm

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/civil-justice/index.htm

If you have any feedback, questions or requests for further information about this statistical bulletin, please direct them to the appropriate contact given at the end of this report.

Tribunals’ statistics

Although this report contains statistics on appeals against the decisions of various tribunals’, it does not contain statistics on the work of the Tribunals Service and the Tribunals judiciary. Quarterly statistics on the workload in the Tribunals Service can be found at:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/tribunals/index.htm

If you have a specific query regarding statistics for the Tribunals Service, please contact:

[email protected]

Coroners statistics

Annual National Statistics on deaths reported to coroners, including inquests and post-mortems held, inquest verdicts returned and finds reported to coroners under treasure legislation can be found at:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/coroners-and-burials/index.htm



http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/criminal-justice/index.htm

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/civil-justice/index.htm

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/tribunals/index.htm

mailto:[email protected]




iii

An outline of the court structure in England and Wales

This diagram is, of necessity, much simplified and should not be taken as acomprehensive statement on the jurisdiction of any specific court.

The UK Supreme Court

appeals from Court of Appeal and in some limited cases the High Court (and Northern Ireland) Scotland – The Court of Session

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

appeals from the Commonwealth, UK’s overseas territories and the British Crown Dependencies

Court of Appeal

Civil Division

appeals from High Court, tribunals and county courts

Criminal Division

appeals from Crown Court

High Court

Chancery Division

equity and trusts, contentious probate, tax partnerships, bankruptcy.

Companies Court

Patents Court

Family Division

matrimonial proceedings, proceedings relating to children

Probate Service

Queen’s Bench Division

contract and tort, etc.

Commercial Court

Admiralty Court

Divisional Court

appeals from county courts on bankruptcy and land registration

Divisional Court

appeals from the magistrates’ courts

Divisional Court

appeals from county courts, Crown Court and magistrates’ courts by way of cases stated and judicial review

county courts

majority of civil litigation subject to nature of claim

Crown Court

trials of indictable offences, appeals from magistrates’courts, cases for sentence

magistrates’ courts

trials of summary offences, committals to the Crown Court, family proceedings courts, youth courts

Judicial and Court Statistics 2010 | Background on the court system in England and Wales

iv

Background on the court system in England and Wales

Virtually all criminal cases in England and Wales start in a magistrates’ court. The less serious offences are handled entirely in magistrates’ courts. More serious offences are passed on to the Crown Court, either for sentencing after the defendant has been found guilty in a magistrates’ court, or for a full trial with a judge and jury. The Crown Court also receives appeals against decisions of the magistrates’ courts.

Cases in the magistrates’ courts are heard by either two or three lay magistrates (local people who volunteer their services, who may not have formal legal qualifications but will have undertaken a training programme to develop the necessary skills) or by one District Judge (legally qualified, paid, full-time professionals, who are usually based in the larger cities and normally hear the more complex or sensitive cases). Crown Court cases may be heard by Circuit Judges, Recorders or a High Court Judge, depending on the seriousness of the offence.

The vast majority of civil cases in England and Wales which do not involve family matters or failure to pay council tax or child maintenance are handled in the county courts. These cases are typically related to debt, the repossession of property, personal injury and insolvency. Once a claim has been served, the usual options for the defendant are to do nothing, pay up, admit the claim and ask for more time to pay up, and/or dispute the claim. The vast majority of claims are either not defended, or settle or are withdrawn before a hearing or trial. Particularly important, complex or substantial cases are dealt with in the High Court.

All family matters in England and Wales are dealt with at either Family Proceedings Courts (which are part of the magistrates’ courts), at county courts or in the Family Division of the High Court. Family courts deal with matters such as: parental disputes, local authority intervention to protect children, matrimonial cases such as divorce petitions, the financial provisions for children after divorce or relationship breakdown, domestic violence remedies and adoption.

As noted above, some civil and family cases are generally dealt with in the High Court rather than in a lower court. The High Court’s Chancery Division primarily deals with the resolution of disputes involving property (e.g. land, business, and intellectual property), taxation, mortgages, insolvency, and others. The High Court’s Queen’s Bench Division deals mainly with civil actions in contract and

Judicial and Court Statistics 2010 | Background on the court system in England and Wales

v

tort (civil wrongs), and also deals with more specialist matters such as applications for judicial reviews. As well as dealing with such cases outright, the High Court also hears appeals involving such matters where they were originally heard in the county and magistrates’ courts. Most proceedings in the High Court are heard by a single judge, but certain kinds of proceedings may be heard by two or more judges. On rare occasions cases may have a jury.

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales is the second most senior court in the country. The Court of Appeal’s Criminal Division hears appeals concerning criminal matters originally dealt with at the Crown Court, while the Civil Division hears appeals concerning cases heard at the county courts and High Court (and also from tribunals). Permission to appeal is required, either from the lower court or the Court of Appeal itself. The judges of the Court of Appeal are the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and 37 Lords Justices.

The United Kingdom Supreme Court was created in October 2009 and replaced the House of Lords as the highest court in the United Kingdom. Decisions made by the Court of Appeal may be further appealed to the Supreme Court (in some civil matters dealt with at the High Court an appeal may be made directly to the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court hears appeals on arguable points of law of the greatest public importance, bearing in mind that the cases will have already been the subject of judicial decision in a lower court. It hears appeals for the whole of the United Kingdom in civil cases, and for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in criminal cases. Additionally, it hears cases on devolution matters. There are 12 Justices of the Supreme Court in total; cases are typically heard by a panel of three to nine of the Justices.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the final Court of Appeal for 23 Commonwealth territories and four independent republics within the Commonwealth. It also hears appeals from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and appeals within the UK relating to a small number of matters such as veterinary work and pastoral schemes.

Judicial and Court Statistics 2010 | Main findings

1

Main findings

The statistics presented in this report are primarily used to monitor the type and volume of cases that are received and processed through the court system of England and Wales.

County courts (non-family)

The civil cases dealt with by the county courts (excluding family cases) typically relate to debt, the repossession of property, personal injury and insolvency. Since 2006, the total number of claims issued has generally followed a downward trend, while the number of defences made and trials/small claim hearings have remained relatively flat.

Key points for 2010

Some 1,617,000 civil (non-family) cases started in 2010, a fall of 14 per cent •compared to 2009, continuing the general downward trend seen since 2006.

The fall in 2010, compared to 2009, was mainly due to decreases in specified •money claims (typically related to debt issues) of 19 per cent, insolvency petitions of 14 per cent, and repossession claims of nine per cent, and was despite a six per cent increase in the number of unspecified money claims (typically related to personal injury).

There were 291,000 defences made in 2010, an eight per cent decrease on •the previous year and the lowest since 2006.

Defended cases which are not settled or withdrawn generally result in a •hearing or trial. In total there were 63,000 trials and small claims hearings in 2010, a fall of seven per cent from 2009 and lower than in each of the three previous years (from 2006 to 2008). On average small claim hearings occurred 31 weeks after the claim was originally made, the same as in 2009. Trials took place an average 50 weeks after the claim was originally made, up from 48 weeks in 2008 and 2009.

There were 447,000 applications for enforcement in 2010 (of which 279,000 •were for warrants, and the remainder for orders such as for attachment of earnings which oblige the debtor’s employer to deduct a set sum from the debtor’s pay and forward it to the court). This was a decrease of 24 per cent compared with 2009 and of 37 per cent compared with 2008. These falls reflect the large falls in claims issued for a specified amount of money and repossession of property and also the large increases in court fees for enforcement applications since 13 July 2009.

54,000 repossessions of property were made by county court bailiffs, a fall •of 14 per cent on the previous year and reflecting the decrease in


2

repossession claims. 24,000 of the properties were on behalf of mortgage lenders, 27 per cent fewer than in 2009 and 34 per cent lower than the 2008 peak

Family matters

Family cases deal with issues such as parental disputes, child protection cases, divorce and separation, and cases of domestic violence. In 2010, there was an overall decrease in applications made in relation to matters affecting children. The number of divorces rose in 2010, a reversal of the recent downward trend seen in previous years.

Key points for 2010

Some 24,300 public law applications (applications for various court orders •relating to the protection of children, which are brought by local authorities or the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) and 122,800 private law applications (applications for court orders which are brought by private individuals) were made in 2010, which were decreases of six per cent and 11 per cent respectively on the previous year. These follow the peaks observed in 2009 for the number of both public and private law applications.

24,400 public law applications were dealt with in 2010, in that an order was •either made or refused or the application was withdrawn. Some of these will relate to applications initially received during the year, and some which were initially received in a previous year. Some 162,500 private law applications were dealt with during 2010.

There were 133,500 petitions for the dissolution of marriage filed in 2010, an •increase of one per cent compared with the previous year. The number of divorces increased by five per cent to 121,300, a reversal of the recent downward trend and now reflecting the trend seen for petitions.

Around 24,100 domestic violence orders were made in 2010. This was a three •per cent decrease on the number made in 2009 and gives a small downward trend.

Since being made available from 25 November 2008, a total of 257 Forced •Marriage Protection Orders were made up to the end of 2010.

Magistrates’ courts

Nearly all criminal court cases start in a magistrates’ court; less serious offences will be dealt with by the court, while more serious offences are passed on to the Crown court.

Key points for 2010

An estimated 1.68 million defendants were proceeded against in criminal •cases in the magistrates’ courts in 2010 (excluding breaches), a fall compared to the 1.79 million defendants’ in 2009.

33


180,000 trials were recorded in the magistrates’ courts in 2010 (unchanged •from 2009). Of those trials, 39 per cent were recorded as cracked (up by one percentage point from 2009), with 18 per cent recorded as ineffective (down by a percentage point from 2009).

The estimated average time taken from charge to completion in 2010 for •adult charged cases, excluding cases sent or committed to the Crown Court, was 6.7 weeks (down from 6.9 weeks in 2009).

The amount paid in the enforcement of financial penalties was £281 million, •a 12 per cent increase on 2009.

The Crown Court

The Crown Court is formally a single court which sits in approximately 77 different locations across England and Wales. It deals with criminal cases that are too serious to be dealt with by the magistrates’ courts. Some cases can only be heard at the Crown Court because of their seriousness (‘sent for trial’ cases) and other types of cases can be heard at either a magistrates’ court or the Crown Court (‘committed for trial’ cases).

The Crown Court also deals with cases ‘committed for sentence’ – those transferred for sentencing after a defendant has been found guilty in a magistrates’ court, when a magistrate believes their sentencing powers are insufficient to apply an appropriate sanction – and appeals against the decision of a magistrates’ court.

Key points for 2010

Overall around 152,300 cases were received by the Crown Court in 2010. •This represents a rise of one per cent on the previous year, continuing the year on year increase, but at a reduced rate of growth.

Some 153,900 cases were disposed of by the Crown Court in 2010. This •figure continues to rise, reflecting the increase in the number of cases referred to the Crown Court. Since more cases were disposed of than received during 2010, the backlog of cases outstanding at the end of the year (46,100) decreased compared to the end of 2009 (47,700).

In 2010, there were approximately 43,300 trial listings in the Crown Court •compared to 39,300 in the previous year. Of these, 44 per cent were recorded as ‘effective’, 14 per cent were ‘ineffective’ and 43 per cent were ‘cracked’. In recent years both ineffective and cracked trial rates have risen slightly.

Of those defendants dealt with in 2010 who entered a plea (in cases •committed or sent for trial), 70 per cent pleaded guilty. Though this represents a drop of one percentage point compared to 2009, this rate has been steadily increasing over the years from 56 per cent in 2001.


4

The ‘average waiting time’ refers to the average time between the date of •sending or committal to the Crown Court and the start of the substantive Crown Court hearing. In 2010, the average waiting time for defendants committed for trial was 14.2 weeks compared to 13.5 weeks in the previous year, while the corresponding figure for defendants sent for trial was 19.3 weeks compared to 18.6 weeks in the previous year. Generally, the average waiting time was lower for those held in custody than for those on bail, and lower for those who pleaded guilty than for those who pleaded not guilty.

High Court – Chancery and Queen’s Bench Divisions

In England and Wales civil justice is administered mainly by the High Court and county courts. It is divided into three main Divisions: the Chancery Division, the Queen’s Bench Division and the Family Division. The Chancery Division and Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court handle the more substantial and complex cases relating to such matters. The Family Division deals with cases concerning family issues, which in this report is included within the Family related court matters statistics section (Chapter 2).

Key points for 2010

There were 31,300 proceedings started in the High Court’s Chancery Division •in 2010, a decrease of 24 per cent from 41,000 in 2009. Applications filed at the Bankruptcy court decreased by 39 per cent, from 18,200 in 2009 to 11,100 in 2010, while 13,700 proceedings started in the Companies Court in 2010, a fall of a third on the previous year.

There were 16,600 proceedings started in the High Court’s Queen’s Bench •Division in 2010, a decrease of 11 per cent on 2009.

Of the 4,900 claims issued in the Queen’s Bench Division at the Royal Courts •of Justice in London, a quarter related to debt and around one in five were personal injury actions.

Appellate Courts

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales is the second most senior court in the country. The Court of Appeal’s Criminal Division hears appeals concerning criminal matters originally dealt with at the Crown Court, while the Civil Division hears appeals concerning cases heard at the county courts and High Court.

In October 2009, the Supreme Court replaced the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords as the highest court in the UK. Decisions made by the Court of Appeal may be further appealed to the Supreme Court (in some civil matters dealt with at the High Court an appeal may be made directly to the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court hears appeals on arguable points of law of the greatest public importance.


5

The High Court also exercises an appellate jurisdiction through its three Divisions in such matters as bankruptcy, judicial review, ‘case stated’ (ruling whether a court or tribunal was wrong in law or in excess of its jurisdiction) and appeals from magistrates’ courts in domestic matters.

Key points for 2010

There were 68 appeals presented to the UK Supreme Court during 2010, •while 57 appeals were determined.

During 2010 a total of 7,300 applications leave to appeal were received, of •which 1,500 were against conviction in The Crown Court and 5,500 against the sentence imposed.

A total of 2,600 appeals were heard by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division •during 2010 of which 500 appeals against conviction and 2,100 appeals against sentence were heard.

A further 1,200 appeals were filed in the Court of Appeal Civil Division. •

There were 10,600 applications for permission to apply for judicial review •received in the Administrative Court of the High Court in 2010, the majority of which, as in previous years, concerned asylum and immigration matters.

Of the 460 substantive applications for judicial review which were dealt with •at the Administrative Court during 2010, there were 190 (42 per cent) allowed, 260 (55 per cent) dismissed and the remaining three per cent were withdrawn.


6

Chapter 1


County courts (civil non-family) | Chapter 1

8

Chapter 1 – County courts (civil non-family)

In 2010 there were 216 county courts in England and Wales. These deal with the vast majority of civil cases (as opposed to criminal cases) which do not involve family matters or failure to pay council tax or child maintenance. All county courts have jurisdiction to deal with contract and tort cases (those relating to civil wrongs) and recovery of land actions. These cases are typically related to debt (generally issued for a specified amount of money), the repossession of property and personal injury (generally issued for an unspecified amount of money). In addition, some county courts deal with bankruptcy and insolvency matters, equity and contested probate actions (where the value of the trust, fund or estate does not exceed £30,000), matters under the Race Relations Act 1976, and actions which all parties agree to have heard in a county court (e.g. defamation cases). Generally, only the most complex, substantial or important cases are dealt with by the High Court.

All county courts are assigned at least one District Judge and some, at least one Circuit Judge. From 6 April 2009, Circuit Judges have generally only heard cases worth over £25,0002 or involving greater importance or complexity. District Judges hear many of the cases worth over £5,000 but generally not over £25,000. In addition to hearing other cases, District Judges generally case manage proceedings, deal with repossession matters, and make contested and uncontested assessments of damages.

Information on the data sources used for the county court statistics can be found in Annex A. Explanations for some of the main terms used in this chapter can be found in the Glossary. The tables of detailed data can be found immediately following this section of commentary.

The number of orders for sale to enforce a charging order has been added to this publication following the commencement of the collection of these statistics in the middle of 2009. The figure for 2010 can be found in Table 1.22 (Enforcement work).

Key findings for 2010

There was a 14 per cent fall compared to 2009 in civil (non-family) cases •commencing in the county courts. Within the total of 1,617,000 cases started in 2010:

2 The lower (claim value) limit of the multi track, whose claims are generally heard by a Circuit Judge, was increased from £15,000.01 to £25,000.01 with effect from 6 April 2009

Judicial and Court Statistics 2010 | Chapter 1

9

1,041,000 were ‘money’ claims for a specified amount (typically related to •debt issues); lower by 19 per cent than in 2009. 36 per cent of these claims had a claim value of up to £500, down from 38 per cent in 2009.

210,000 were repossession claims, with 75,000 being mortgage related •and having decreased by 19 per cent since 2009, and 135,000 being landlord related and having decreased by one per cent compared to 2009.

191,000 were ‘money’ claims for an unspecified amount (typically related •to personal injury), up by six per cent compared with 2009.

66,000 were insolvency petitions, down by 14 per cent compared with •2009.

Eight per cent fewer defences were made in civil cases in the county courts •and six per cent less allocations to track than in 2009.

20,000 trials were disposed of, a two per cent decrease on 2009, with 71 per •cent relating to unspecified ‘money’ cases. 43,000 small claim hearings were also disposed of, a nine per cent decrease on 2009, with 96 per cent relating to specified ‘money’ cases. Trials took place on average 50 weeks following issue, up from 48 weeks in 2009, and lasted an average of three and a half to four hours. Small claim hearings took place 31 weeks following issue, the same as in 2009 and lasted around an hour and 20 minutes.

318,000 applications were made for enforcing a monetary judgment amount •(via warrants of execution, attachment of earnings orders, charging orders and third party debt orders) in 2010, a 28 per cent decrease compared to 2009 and a 41 per cent fall compared to 2008. The majority of the decline since 2008 followed large increases in court fees for these types of enforcements, which came into effect on 13 July 2009.

125,000 warrants of possession were issued, 10 per cent lower than in 2009. •In total, bailiffs made 54,000 repossessions of properties, 14 per cent lower than in 2009. 24,000 of the properties were on behalf of mortgage lenders, 27 per cent fewer than in 2009 and 34 per cent lower than the 2008 peak.

Commencing a case

Historically, the normal method of taking someone to court regarding a civil matter is for the person doing so (the claimant) to complete a claim form and take it into a county court. However, the creation of electronic services has meant that claims for a specified amount of money (where the claim is for a set amount of money) or repossession of property can be completed via the internet. Money Claim Online (www.moneyclaim.gov.uk) was launched in February 2002 and issues claims in the name of Northampton County Court. Possession Claim Online (https://www.possessionclaim.gov.uk/pcol/) was launched in October 2006 and issues claims in the name of the court relating to the postcode of the property. With both, the claimant can pay the court fee by credit or debit card. In addition, for Possession Claim Online, large issuers can pay by direct debit.

www.moneyclaim.gov.uk

https://www.possessionclaim.gov.uk/pcol/


10

Claimants who issue a large number of claims for a specified amount of money each year (e.g. banks, credit card and store card issuers, utilities and solicitors specialising in debt recovery), can do so by filing them in a computer readable form to the Claim Production Centre (CPC). The CPC, set up in January 1990, guarantees issue and dispatch of claims within 24-48 hours. Most of the work of the CPC is done by the County Court Bulk Centre, a central processing unit attached to Northampton County Court which was set up in March 1992.

In total, there were 1,617,000 civil (non-family) proceedings started in 2010, a decrease of 14 per cent compared to 2009. This comprised the following types of cases:

1,041,000 ‘money’ claims with specified claim amounts (typically related to •debt issues), a decrease of 19 per cent compared with 2009 continuing the downward trend after peaking in 2006. 52 per cent of these claims were issued through the County Court Bulk Centre and 13 per cent through Money Claim Online. Overall, 36 per cent had a value of up to £500 compared with 38 per cent in 2009 and 49 per cent in 2006. Just 13 per cent had a value over £5,000 compared to 14 per cent in 2009 and 12 per cent in 2006.

191,000 ‘money’ claims with unspecified claim amounts (typically related to •personal injury), an increase of six per cent compared with 2009 and of 31 per cent compared with 2006. 52 per cent of these had a value of over £1,000 and up to £5,000, 30 per cent a value over £5,000 and up to £15,000, and 17 per cent a value of over £15,000.

75, 000 mortgage repossession claims, a decrease of 19 per cent compared •with 2009 and of 47 per cent compared with the 2008 peak. The fall in these claims since the end of 2008 coincides with the introduction of the Mortgage Pre-Action Protocol, which gives clear guidance on what the courts expect lenders and borrowers to have done prior to a claim being issued. It encourages more pre-action contact between lender and borrower and as such enables more efficient use of the court’s time and resources.

90,000 social landlord repossession claims, a decrease of eight per cent •compared with 2009 and, of 22 per cent since 2006, thus continuing the broad downward trend.

45,000 private landlord repossession claims (including accelerated procedure •claims), 16 per cent more than in 2009 after an 13 per cent fall between 2008 and 2009, and seven per cent more than in 2006.

66,000 insolvency petitions, 14 per cent less than in 2009 and more than •reversing the similar percentage increase between 2006 and 2009. The large decrease has been driven by decreases in bankruptcy petitions made by debtors (17 per cent), and company winding-up petitions (13 per cent).

100,000 non-‘money’ claims including for return of goods but not mortgage •and landlord repossession, two per cent lower than in 2009.


11

Claims issued by type of case, 2002-2010

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

20102002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Number of claims/petitions(in thousands)

Specified "money" claims Unspecified "money" claims Claims for recovery of land

Other claimsInsolvency

Claim issue statistics are shown in Tables 1.1 to 1.9

Case Progression

Whether the claim is issued online or through the county courts, the usual procedure is for a copy of the claim form and a response pack to be sent to (served on) the defendant who has 14 days to respond to the claim. The defendant can do nothing, pay up (either the full amount of the claim or in part), admit the claim and ask for more time to pay up (in full or part), and/or dispute (defend) the claim (in full or part). In 2010, 291,000 defences were made, an eight per cent decrease compared with 2009 and fewer than in any of the previous years from 2006 onwards.

If the claim is defended, the usual procedure is for further information to be provided by the parties, following which the case is allocated by a judge to one of three case management tracks. In total, there were 169,000 allocations to track in 2010, a six per cent decrease compared with 2009 but similar to the annual average between 2006 and 2009. This was made up of, in ascending order of case complexity and degree of judicial involvement:

80,000 allocations to the small claim track, a decrease of 14 per cent •compared to 2009 and representing the lowest yearly total since 2006. This track is generally for cases with a claim value of up to £5000 (or £1,000 for


12

personal injury and housing disrepair matters) which do not require substantial pre-hearing preparation. The hearings are designed to be accessible to litigants in person (i.e. without representation by a solicitor or counsel), and are dealt with in about an hour.

66,000 allocations to the fast track, seven per cent more than in 2009 and •23 per cent more than in 2008 after having risen by five per cent between 2006 and 2008. The large increase since 2008 reflects the rise in the fast track upper (claim value) limit from £15,000 to £25,000 for all proceedings issued on or after 6 April 2009. The fast track is generally for cases with a claim value greater than £5,000 (or £1,000 for personal injury and housing disrepair matters) and not more than this upper limit, with issues not complex enough to merit more than a one day trial.

23,000 allocations to the multi track, a decrease of nine per cent compared •to 2009 and of 14 per cent compared to 2008 after having fallen by three per cent between 2006 and 2008. The large decline since 2008 reflects the rise in the multi track lower (claim value) limit from over £15,000 to over £25,000. The multi track is generally for cases with a claim value exceeding the fast track upper limit with issues complex enough to merit preliminary hearings. They generally last more than one day at trial.

Around 37 per cent of cases allocated to track reached a trial or small claim hearing in 2010, with most settling or being withdrawn. In total, there were 63,000 trials and small claim hearings, seven per cent less than in 2009 and lower than in each of the three previous years (from 2006 to 2008). This comprised:

20,000 fast and multi track trials, two per cent less than in 2009 after rising •by 15 per cent between 2006 and 2009. More than two thirds (71 per cent) of these related to unspecified ‘money’ cases. On average, trials occurred 50 weeks following issue, up from 48 weeks in 2009 after a decline from 50 weeks in 2006. They lasted between three and a half and four hours on average, similar to the average duration in each of the previous three years (2007 to 2009).

43,000 small claim hearings, nine per cent less than in 2009 and lower than •in each of the three previous years (from 2006 to 2008). The vast majority (96 per cent) of these related to specified ‘money’ cases. On average, small claim hearings occurred 31 weeks following issue, the same as in 2009 but up from 29 weeks in 2008 and 27 weeks in 2006. They lasted around one hour and 20 minutes on average, similar to the previous four years.


13

Hearings and trials by type, 2002-2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

20102002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Number of hearings (in thousands)

Trials (fast and multi track) Small claims hearings

Case progression statistics are shown in Tables 1.10 to 1.14.

Judgments

There are many types of County Court Judgments. In specified ‘money’ cases the majority follow either no response from the defendant within the allotted time period (a default judgment) or the claimant accepting the defendant’s offer to pay all or part of the amount owed (a judgment by acceptance or determination). These judgments are entered as an administrative function and generally don’t involve a judge. Overall, 751,000 judgments by default, acceptance and determination were made in 2010, with almost all relating to specified ‘money’ claims and these accounting for around 72 per cent of specified ‘money’ claims issued in 2010. Compared with 2009, there were 20 per cent fewer judgments by default, acceptance and determination reflecting the 19 per cent fall in specified ‘money’ claims.

In possession cases, the standard procedure is for the claim being issued to be given a hearing date before a District Judge. Overall 148,000 claims led to possession orders being made in 2010, 10 per cent fewer than in 2009 and 30 per cent fewer than the peak in 2008. Most of the fall between 2008 and 2010 is explained by a 49 per cent fall in mortgage related claims leading to orders, following a 27 per cent rise between 2006 and 2008. There was also a 10 per cent fall in landlord related claims leading to orders since 2008, with these generally having fallen between 2006 and 2010. Overall, 55 per cent of all claims leading to orders involved orders being made that were not suspended (possession given immediately or by a given date) in 2010, up from 53 per cent in


14

2009 but lower than the peak of 56 per cent in 2007. Of mortgage related claims leading to orders, 53 per cent involved orders being made that were not suspended, similar to the annual average between 2006 and 2009.

Registry Trust Limited (a private non-profit making company limited by guarantee) administers the statutory public register of Judgments, Orders and Fines. Overall, 731,000 county court judgments were registered in claims for a specified amount of money with Registry Trust in 2010, 20 per cent less than in 2009. 79 per cent of these related to consumers, compared to 77 per cent in 2009 after having declined from 83 per cent in 2006. During the year, 108,000 entries were satisfied, the judgments having been paid in full after one month of the date of judgment. A further 78,000 entries were cancelled, the judgment having been made in error, set aside, reversed, or paid in full within one month of the date of judgment. All entries are automatically removed at the end of the sixth calendar year after the date of judgment. The Register is open for public inspection on payment of a statutory fee, and is used in particular by credit reference agencies to assist lenders in making responsible credit granting decisions, for the benefit of both consumers and businesses.

73,000 searches of the Registry were performed in 2010, mainly by individuals searching for themselves or others or by agents acting for law firms. This represented a 17 per cent increase compared to 2009 and almost doubled compared to 2006. Internet search requests increased by 20 per cent from 59,000 in 2009 to 70,000 in 2010. Other (postal and personal) searches fell by 38 per cent from 4,000 in 2009 to 2000 in 2010. Additional information regarding the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines can be obtained at www.trustonline.org.uk.

Judgment statistics are shown in Tables 1.16 to 1.18

Enforcement

There are various methods of enforcing judgments in the county courts. The most common method is the warrant of execution against a debtor’s goods, where unless the amount due under the warrant is paid, saleable items owned by a defendant can be recovered by a bailiff acting on behalf of the court and sold. Other warrant types are for the repossession of property, the return of particular goods or items, and to enforce an order for which the penalty for failure to comply is imprisonment, the warrant of committal which authorises the bailiff to arrest and deliver the person to prison or the court. During 2010, 151,000 warrants of execution were issued, 36 per cent lower than in 2009 and 56 per cent lower than in 2006, with the number having declined in each year. Overall 22 pence in the pound was recovered, with 80 pence in the pound being recovered from warrants of execution where the creditor had provided a correct address for the debtor.

www.trustonline.org.uk


15

Where repossession of property or the return of particular goods or items is sought, the claimant can apply for a warrant of possession or warrant of delivery. In 2010, there were 125,000 warrants of possession issued, 10 per cent lower than in 2009 and 22 per cent lower than the peak in 2008. In total, bailiffs made 54,000 repossessions of properties, 14 per cent lower than in 2009 and 23 per cent fewer than the 2008 peak. 24,000 of the properties were on behalf of mortgage lenders, 27 per cent fewer than in 2009 and 34 per cent lower than the 2008 peak. There were 2,200 warrants of delivery issued, six per cent lower than in 2009 and the annual average between 2006 and 2009.

To enforce an order for which the penalty for failure to comply is imprisonment, it is possible to apply for a warrant of committal which authorises the bailiff to arrest and deliver the person to prison or the Court. There were 1,400 warrants of committal issued in 2010, 26 per cent more than in 2009 after a 37 per cent decline between 2006 and 2009.

A judgment amount can also be enforced through the claimant applying for:

An attachment of earnings order obliging the debtor’s employer to deduct a •set sum from the debtor’s pay and forward it to the court. 54,000 applications were made for attachment of earnings orders in 2010, 25 per cent less than in 2009 and 36 per cent less than in 2006 with the number having declined in each year. Around 86 per cent of applications resulted in orders being made compared to 85 per cent in 2009 and 78 per cent in 2006.

A charging order enabling the creditor to obtain security for the payment •against a property owned by the debtor. 109,000 applications were made for charging orders in 2010, 14 per cent lower than in 2009 and 34 per cent fewer than in 2008 after rising by 77 per cent between 2006 and 2008. There were also 500 orders for sale made in 2010.

A third party debt order enabling the creditor to secure payment by freezing •and then seizing money owed or payable by a third party to a debtor. 4,000 applications were made for third party debt orders in 2010, 40 per cent lower than in 2009.

In certain circumstances a debtor may apply to the county court to combine debts into an administration order (AO). The debtor must have a judgment debt and at least one other that he is unable to pay with the total indebtedness not exceeding £5,000. Once the debts have been examined and found to be correctly calculated a District Judge can make an order for the debtor to make regular payments to the court. The court will then distribute the money in the appropriate proportions to the creditors listed by the debtor. There were 1,100 AOs made in 2010, 44 per cent fewer than in 2009 and 75 per cent fewer than in 2006. To assist in determining the most appropriate method of enforcing a judgment, the claimant can apply for an order to obtain information from the judgment debtors. This involves debtors being ordered to attend court to provide


16

details of their means. There were 23,000 orders made to obtain information from debtors in 2010, 23 per cent fewer than in 2009 and 21 per cent lower than the average over the previous four years.

Enforcement applications by type, 2002-2010

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2009 20102002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Number of enforcement applications (in thousands)

Warrants Attachment of earnings Charging Orders Third Party Debt Orders

Enforcement statistics are shown in Tables 1.19 to 1.22.


17

Tabl

e 1.1

Cou

nty

cour

ts (n

on-f

amily

wor

k)Su

mm

ary

stat

istic

s on

clai

ms

issu

ed, 1 E

ngla

nd a

nd W

ales

, 200

6–20

10N

umbe

r of c

laim

s / p

etiti

ons

Year

Spec

ified

‘m

oney

’ cl

aim

s 2

Uns

peci

fied

‘mon

ey’

clai

ms 3

Tota

l ‘m

oney

’ cl

aim

s

Clai

ms f

or

reco

very

of

land

4

Clai

ms f

or

retu

rn

of g

oods

Oth

er n

on-

‘mon

ey’

cla

ims

Tota

l non

-‘m

oney

’ c

laim

s

Tota

l in

solv

ency

pe

titio

ns 5

Tota

l pr

ocee

ding

s st

arte

d

2006

1,57

2,04

414

5,19

51,

717,

239

289,

408

9,85

210

0,07

439

9,33

466

,966

2,18

3,53

9

2007

1,40

8,49

914

4,12

81,

552,

627

284,

782

8,43

099

,024

392,

236

66,9

512,

011,

814

2008

1,42

6,38

916

0,24

81,

586,

637

290,

958

8,65

210

7,605

407,

215

70,2

722,

064,

124

2009

1,28

1,105

178,

969

1,46

0,07

423

0,12

510

,269

102,

726

343,

120

76,2

111,

879,

405

2010

1,04

0,58

919

0,58

21,

231,

171

210,

392

8,38

810

0,66

631

9,44

665

,919

1,61

6,53

6

Sour

ce:

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

Cas

eMan

sys

tem

, Cla

im P

rodu

ctio

n Ce

ntre

, Mon

ey C

laim

Onl

ine,

Pos

sess

ion

Clai

m O

nlin

e an

d m

anua

l ret

urns

Not

es:

1 Ex

clud

ing

whe

re c

laim

s ar

e re

-issu

ed2

Clai

ms

issu

ed fo

r a s

peci

fied

amou

nt o

f mon

ey, i

nclu

ding

thos

e m

ade

thro

ugh

the

Clai

m P

rodu

ctio

n Ce

ntre

, Cou

nty

Cour

t Bul

k Ce

ntre

and

Mon

ey C

laim

Onl

ine

3 Cl

aim

s is

sued

for a

n un

spec

ified

am

ount

of m

oney

4 In

clud

es c

laim

s m

ade

via

Poss

essi

on C

laim

Onl

ine

5 In

clud

es p

etiti

ons

hear

d in

the

Dis

tric

t Reg

istr

ies o

f the

Hig

h Co

urt b

ut n

ot in

the

Roya

l Cou

rts o

f Jus

tice


18

Table 1.2County courts (non-family work)Summary statistics on claims issued 1 by HMCTS area, 2 2010

Number of claims / petitions

Area

Specified ‘money’ claims 3

Unspecified ‘money’ claims 4

Total ‘money’

claims

Claims for recovery of land 5

Claims for return of

goods

Other non-‘money’

claims

Total non-‘money’

claims

Total insolvency petitions 6

Total proceedings

started

Avon & Somerset, Devon & Cornwall, and Gloucestershire

20,187 7,499 27,686 8,895 422 4,845 14,162 5,931 47,779

Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Thames Valley

30,177 7,047 37,224 12,115 538 4,558 17,211 4,989 59,424

Cambridgeshire, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk

22,187 5,395 27,582 13,362 553 4,034 17,949 5,618 51,149

Cheshire and Merseyside 16,915 51,589 68,504 9,218 442 10,951 20,611 3,327 92,442Cleveland, Durham and Northumbria 12,536 7,807 20,343 11,243 528 5,618 17,389 3,793 41,525Cumbria and Lancashire 8,620 6,913 15,533 5,963 274 3,229 9,466 2,194 27,193Dorset, Hampshire & Isle of Wight, and Wiltshire

24,038 6,014 30,052 9,096 433 4,425 13,954 3,368 47,374

East Midlands 25,648 8,026 33,674 14,899 530 5,060 20,489 5,727 59,890Greater Manchester 25,054 23,790 48,844 13,173 525 8,878 22,576 4,087 75,507Humber and South Yorkshire 21,981 7,564 29,545 8,284 340 5,225 13,849 3,067 46,461Kent, Surrey and Sussex 23,629 5,976 29,605 14,037 613 5,219 19,869 4,336 53,810London Civil and Family 54,066 20,080 74,146 48,659 1,317 18,630 68,606 2,883 145,635Midand West Wales 6,112 1,272 7,384 2,968 211 894 4,073 1,050 12,507North and West Yorkshire 25,399 13,181 38,580 8,990 422 6,498 15,910 4,567 59,057North Wales 3,022 1,812 4,834 1,955 106 1,108 3,169 932 8,935South East Wales 8,814 4,260 13,074 5,935 274 3,351 9,560 2,097 24,731West Mercia and Staffordshire 12,980 3,234 16,214 6,696 307 2,160 9,163 2,644 28,021West Midlands and Warwickshire 23,229 9,123 32,352 14,904 553 5,983 21,440 5,309 59,101

County Court Bulk Centre 7 537,912 - 537,912 - - - - - 537,912

Money Claim Online 7 138,083 - 138,083 - - - - - 138,083

Total 1,040,589 190,582 1,231,171 210,392 8,388 100,666 319,446 65,919 1,616,536

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CaseMan system, Claim Production Centre, Money Claim Online, Possession Claim Online and manual returnsNotes:1 Excluding where claims are re-issued2 The figures are based on the new HMCTS areas, as per the 2010 restructuring of administrative arrangements3 Claims issued for a specified amount of money, including those made through the Claim Production Centre, County Court Bulk Centre and Money Claim Online4 Claims issued for an unspecified amount of money5 Includes claims made via Possession Claim Online6 Includes petitions issued in the District Registries of the High Court7 These claims are issued in the name of Northampton County Court


19

Tabl

e 1.

3C

ount

y co

urts

(non

-fam

ily w

ork)

Sum

mar

y st

atis

tics1 o

n re

cove

ry o

f lan

d ac

tions

in E

ngla

nd a

nd W

ales

, 200

6–20

10N

umbe

r of c

laim

s /

clai

ms

lead

ing

to a

n or

der m

ade2

34

5M

ortg

age

repo

sses

sion

sSo

cial

land

lord

repo

sses

sion

s Pr

ivat

e la

ndlo

rd re

poss

essi

ons

Acc

eler

ated

repo

sses

sion

s To

tal

Clai

ms

lead

ing

to a

Clai

ms

lead

ing

to a

Clai

ms

lead

ing

to a

Clai

ms

lead

ing

to a

Clai

ms

lead

ing

to a

Clai

ms

Susp

ende

d O

rder

Cl

aim

s Su

spen

ded

Ord

er

Clai

ms

Susp

ende

d O

rder

Cl

aim

s Su

spen

ded

Ord

er

Cla

ims

Susp

ende

d O

rder

Ye

aris

sued

orde

r mad

em

ade

issu

edor

der m

ade

mad

eis

sued

orde

r mad

em

ade

issu

edor

der m

ade

mad

eis

sued

orde

r mad

em

ade

2006

131,

248

43,19

944

,819

116,

152

46,9

3628

,212

19,0

021,

759

9,60

923

,006

716

,912

289,

408

91,9

0199

,552

2007

137,7

2541

,474

49,18

010

3,21

440

,563

27,12

019

,347

1,35

411

,026

24,4

968

18,5

4628

4,78

283

,399

105,

872

2008

142,

741

52,0

9459

,669

104,

165

43,9

7226

,184

21,0

041,1

1811

,906

23,0

4810

17,6

2329

0,95

897

,194

115,

382

2009

93,5

3332

,946

39,2

8998

,108

43,2

1023

,730

21,4

5998

312

,424

17,0

2510

12,5

3723

0,12

577

,149

87,9

80

2010

75,4

3126

,495

30,4

7390

,217

39,2

8721

,813

23,1

4798

713

,669

21,5

9711

15,0

7521

0,39

266

,780

81,0

30

Sour

ce:

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

Cas

eMan

sys

tem

and

Pos

sess

ion

Clai

m O

nlin

eN

otes

:1

The

figur

es in

this

tabl

e m

atch

thos

e pr

ovid

ed in

the

2011

Q1

mor

tgag

e an

d la

ndlo

rd p

osse

ssio

n st

atis

tics

bulle

tin. S

ee h

ttp:

//w

ww

.just

ice.

gov.

uk/p

ublic

atio

ns/s

tatis

tics-

and-

data

/civ

il-ju

stic

e/m

ortg

age-

poss

essi

on.h

tm2

The

num

ber o

f cla

ims t

hat l

ead

to a

n or

der i

nclu

des

all c

laim

s in

whi

ch th

e fir

st o

rder

, whe

ther

out

right

or s

uspe

nded

, is

mad

e du

ring

the

perio

d3

Actio

ns b

y lo

cal a

utho

ritie

s an

d ho

usin

g as

soci

atio

ns4

Actio

ns b

y al

l lan

dlor

ds e

xcep

t loc

al a

utho

ritie

s an

d ho

usin

g as

soci

atio

ns5

Land

lord

act

ions

via

the

acce

lera

ted

proc

edur

e en

ablin

g or

ders

to b

e m

ade

sole

ly o

n th

e ba

sis o

f writ

ten

evid

ence

for a

ssur

ed s

hort

hold

tena

ncie

s, w

hen

the

fixed

per

iod

of th

e te

nanc

y ha

s co

me

to a

n en

d

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/civil-justice/mortgage-possession.htm



20

Tabl

e 1.

4C

ount

y co

urts

(non

-fam

ily w

ork)

Sum

mar

y st

atis

tics1,

2 on

reco

very

of l

and

actio

ns b

y H

M C

ourt

s an

d Tr

ibun

als S

ervi

ce 3 a

rea

and

regi

on, 2

010

Num

ber o

f cla

ims /

cla

ims l

eadi

ng to

an

orde

r mad

e4

56

7M

ortg

age

repo

sses

sion

sSo

cial

land

lord

repo

sses

sion

s Pr

ivat

e la

ndlo

rd re

poss

essi

ons

Acce

lera

ted

repo

sses

sion

s To

tal

Clai

ms l

eadi

ng to

Clai

ms l

eadi

ng to

Clai

ms l

eadi

ng to

Clai

ms l

eadi

ng to

Clai

ms l

eadi

ng to

Clai

ms

Susp

ende

d O

rder

s Cl

aim

s Su

spen

ded

Ord

ers

Clai

ms

Susp

ende

d O

rder

s Cl

aim

s Su

spen

ded

Ord

ers

Clai

ms

Susp

ende

d O

rder

s Ar

ea /

regi

oniss

ued

orde

rsm

ade

issue

dor

ders

mad

eIss

ued

orde

rsm

ade

issue

dor

ders

mad

eiss

ued

orde

rsm

ade

Lond

on C

ivil

and

Fam

ily9,

697

3,56

43,

445

22,1

296,

285

5,96

97,

394

229

4,17

19,

439

26,

337

48,6

5910

,080

19,9

22

Lond

on

9,69

73,

564

3,44

522

,129

6,28

55,

969

7,39

422

94,

171

9,43

92

6,33

748

,659

10,0

8019

,922

East

Mid

land

s 6,

061

2,07

62,

757

6,75

93,

326

1,74

71,

191

6272

488

80

617

14,8

995,

464

5,84

5

Wes

t Mer

cia

and

2,93

295

51,

193

2,88

21,

595

605

477

2129

740

50

305

6,69

62,

571

2,40

0St

affo

rdsh

ire

Wes

t Mid

land

s and

5,

413

1,86

62,

140

7,39

63,

363

1,82

81,

199

6469

289

60

619

14,9

045,

293

5,27

9W

arw

icks

hire

Mid

land

s14

,406

4,89

76,

090

17,0

378,

284

4,18

02,

867

147

1,71

32,

189

01,

541

36,4

9913

,328

13,5

24

Clev

elan

d, D

urha

m a

nd

4,53

61,

531

2,09

35,

474

2,60

21,

065

784

4148

544

92

333

11,2

434,

176

3,97

6N

orth

umbr

ia

Hum

ber a

nd S

outh

3,

927

1,27

71,

704

3,24

81,

628

1,00

064

832

416

461

136

18,

284

2,93

83,

481

York

shire

Nor

th a

nd W

est Y

orks

hire

4,

590

1,56

02,

011

3,00

71,

420

925

869

3953

252

41

385

8,99

03,

020

3,85

3

Nor

th E

ast

13,0

534,

368

5,80

811

,729

5,65

02,

990

2,30

111

21,

433

1,43

44

1,07

928

,517

10,1

3411

,310

Ches

hire

and

Mer

seys

ide

4,00

61,

422

1,62

93,

856

2,08

964

083

138

487

525

137

79,

218

3,55

03,

133

Cum

bria

and

Lan

cash

ire2,

917

1,01

11,

205

2,07

797

052

650

531

309

464

029

35,

963

2,01

22,

333

Gre

ater

Man

ches

ter

5,13

41,

935

2,09

56,

085

3,03

81,

306

1,22

069

715

734

053

713

,173

5,04

24,

653

Nor

th W

est

12,0

574,

368

4,92

912

,018

6,09

72,

472

2,55

613

81,

511

1,72

31

1,20

728

,354

10,6

0410

,119

Bedf

ords

hire

, Her

tfor

dshi

re

4,12

215

731,

470

5,45

125

201,

039

1,44

846

909

1,09

41

772

12,1

154,

140

4,19

0an

d Th

ames

Val

ley

Cam

brid

gesh

ire, E

ssex

, 4,

973

1689

2,03

65,

657

2812

1,35

21,

418

7982

01,

314

396

513

,362

4,58

35,

173

Nor

folk

and

Suf

folk

Kent

, Sur

rey

and

Suss

ex

5,07

618

361,

922

4,84

722

441,

091

2,32

112

11,

351

1,79

30

1,27

914

,037

4,20

15,

643


Tabl

e 1.

4 co

ntin

ued

Sout

h Ea

st14

,171

5,09

85,

428

15,9

557,

576

3,48

25,

187

246

3,08

04,

201

43,

016

39,5

1412

,924

15,0

06

Avon

& S

omer

set,

3,64

812

101,

472

3,28

915

5078

393

729

579

1,02

10

765

8,89

52,

789

3,59

9D

evon

& C

ornw

all,

and

Glo

uces

ters

hire

Dor

set,

Ham

pshi

re &

Isle

of

3,36

312

041,

288

3,52

417

3371

01,

162

5172

11,

047

076

59,

096

2,98

83,

484

Wig

ht, a

nd W

iltsh

ire

Sout

h W

est

7,01

12,

414

2,76

06,

813

3,28

31,

493

2,09

980

1,30

02,

068

01,

530

17,9

915,

777

7,08

3

Mid

and

Wes

t Wal

es

1,29

041

252

71,

443

638

403

114

767

121

090

2,96

81,

057

1,08

7

Nor

th W

ales

97

735

539

468

730

720

517

57

104

116

080

1,95

566

978

3

Sout

h Ea

st W

ales

2,

769

1,01

91,

092

2,40

61,

167

619

454

2129

030

60

195

5,93

52,

207

2,19

6

Wal

es5,

036

1,78

62,

013

4,53

62,

112

1,22

774

335

461

543

036

510

,858

3,93

34,

066

Tota

l75

,431

26,4

9530

,473

90,2

1739

,287

21,8

1323

,147

987

13,6

6921

,597

1115

,075

210,

392

66,7

8081

,030

Sour

ce:

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

Cas

eMan

sys

tem

and

Pos

sess

ion

Clai

m O

nlin

eN

otes

:1

The

figur

es in

this

tabl

e m

atch

thos

e pr

ovid

ed in

the

2011

Q1

mor

tgag

e an

d la

ndlo

rd p

osse

ssio

n st

atis

tics

bulle

tin. S

ee h

ttp:

//w

ww

.just

ice.

gov.

uk/p

ublic

atio

ns/s

tatis

tics-

and-

data

/civ

il-ju

stic

e/m

ortg

age-

poss

essi

on.h

tm2

Clai

ms

mad

e vi

a Po

sses

sion

Cla

im O

nlin

e ar

e is

sued

in th

e na

me

of th

e lo

cal c

ourt

rela

ting

to th

e po

stco

de o

f the

pro

pert

y3

The

figur

es a

re b

ased

on

the

new

HM

CTS

area

s, as

per

the

2010

rest

ruct

urin

g of

adm

inist

rativ

e ar

rang

emen

ts4

The

num

ber o

f cla

ims t

hat l

ead

to a

n or

der i

nclu

des

all c

laim

s in

whi

ch th

e fir

st o

rder

, whe

ther

out

right

or s

uspe

nded

, is

mad

e du

ring

the

perio

d 5

Act

ions

by

loca

l aut

horit

ies

and

hous

ing

asso

ciat

ions

6 Ac

tions

by

all l

andl

ords

exc

ept l

ocal

aut

horit

ies

and

hous

ing

asso

ciat

ions

7 La

ndlo

rd a

ctio

ns v

ia th

e ac

cele

rate

d pr

oced

ure

enab

ling

orde

rs to

be

mad

e so

lely

on

the

basi

s of w

ritte

n ev

iden

ce fo

r ass

ured

sho

rtho

ld te

nanc

ies,

whe

n th

e fix

ed p

erio

d of

the

tena

ncy

has

com

e to

an

end

21



22

Table 1.5County courts (non-family work)Summary statistics on other non-‘money’ claims issued in England and Wales, 2006–2010

Number of claims

Year

Housing (not Landlord or

Mortgage possession) 1 Injunctions 2 Enforcement 3

Pre-issue applications 4 Other 5 Total

2006 6,544 8,419 29,199 14,059 41,853 100,0742007 6,270 9,699 24,302 15,553 43,200 99,0242008 6,164 10,198 26,028 14,616 50,599 107,6052009 6,144 10,031 22,186 15,241 49,124 102,7262010 6,425 8,428 21,457 14,888 49,468 100,666

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CaseMan systemNotes:1 Includes landlord and tenancy applications generally for a new tenancy agreement, claims to evict trespassers and claims for interim

possession orders2 To make somebody do something or to stop them doing it3 Enforcement of Tribunal awards and orders made in magistrates’ courts4 To obtain an order for disclosure of information prior to issue of a claim5 Includes orders for costs only


23

Table 1.6County courts (non-family work)Summary statistics on other non-‘money’ claims issued by HMCTS area1, 2010

Number of claims

Area

Housing (not Landlord or

Mortgage possession) 2 Injunctions 3 Enforcement 4

Pre-action disclosure

applications 5 Other 6 Total

Avon & Somerset, Devon & Cornwall, and Gloucestershire

313 433 1,024 803 2,272 4,845


297 319 1,003 239 2,700 4,558


267 324 1,338 248 1,857 4,034

Cheshire and Merseyside 172 871 844 2,826 6,238 10,951

Cleveland, Durham and Northumbria 134 307 1,879 818 2,480 5,618

Cumbria and Lancashire 158 219 455 689 1,708 3,229

Dorset, Hampshire & Isle of Wight, and Wiltshire

235 325 1,598 352 1,915 4,425

East Midlands 235 452 1,510 598 2,265 5,060

Greater Manchester 145 891 1,194 2,289 4,359 8,878

Humber and South Yorkshire 165 751 1,110 1,345 1,854 5,225

Kent, Surrey and Sussex 371 301 1,724 352 2,471 5,219

London Civil and Family 2,893 2,090 2,897 879 9,871 18,630

Mid and West Wales 40 50 359 37 408 894

North and West Yorkshire 297 431 1,106 1,241 3,423 6,498

North Wales 52 26 250 233 547 1,108

South East Wales 96 215 1,087 585 1,368 3,351

West Mercia and Staffordshire 144 174 616 359 867 2,160

West Midlands and Warwickshire 411 249 1,463 995 2,865 5,983

Total 6,425 8,428 21,457 14,888 49,468 100,666

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CaseMan systemNotes:1 The figures are based on the new HMCTS areas, as per the 2010 restructuring of administrative arrangements2 Includes landlord and tenancy applications generally for a new tenancy agreement, claims to evict trespassers and claims for interim

possession orders3 To make somebody do something or to stop them doing it4 Enforcement of Tribunal awards and orders made in magistrates’ courts5 To obtain an order for disclosure of information prior to issue of a claim6 Includes orders for costs only


24

Table 1.7County courts (non-family work)Summary statistics1 on insolvency petitions2 issued in England and Wales, 2006–2010

Number of petitions

YearCompany

windings-up 3

Individual bankruptcy 4

TotalCreditor’s petition Debtor’s petition

2006 6,956 11,045 48,965 66,9662007 6,296 11,327 49,322 66,9452008 6,075 12,068 52,129 70,2722009 5,690 11,400 59,121 76,2112010 4,939 11,855 49,125 65,919

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service manual returnsNote:1 The figures in this table match those provided in the 2011Q1 company winding up and bankruptcy petition statistics bulletin. See http://

www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/civil-justice/company-winding-up.htm2 Includes petitions issued in the District Registries of the High Court but not in the Royal Courts of Justice (the headline quarterly National

Statistics on insolvency proceedings issued include both, these being published in the Company winding up and bankruptcy petition statistics: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/civil-justice/company-winding-up.htm)

3 ‘Winding up’ is the process by which a company’s existence is terminated, whether due to insolvency or for another reason4 Where an individual has debts that he/she is unable to pay

Table 1.8County courts (non-family work)‘Money’ claims issued for a specified amount, with percentage breakdown by claim value, England and Wales, 2006–2010

Percentage

Year

Total number

of claims issued

Value of claim

Lower bound (>) £0 £500 £1,000 £5,000 £15,000 £50,000 Other 1

Upper bound (<=) £500 £1,000 £5,000 £15,000 £50,000 n/a

2006 1,572,044 48.6% 15.4% 23.6% 8.6% 2.9% 0.4% 0.3%2007 1,408,499 40.8% 15.4% 28.2% 10.9% 3.9% 0.5% 0.3%2008 1,426,389 41.1% 14.9% 28.2% 11.3% 3.7% 0.5% 0.3%2009 1,281,105 38.1% 17.1% 30.0% 10.4% 3.4% 0.6% 0.3%2010 1,040,589 35.7% 18.5% 32.1% 9.9% 2.9% 0.5% 0.4%

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CaseMan system, Claim Production Centre, Money Claim OnlineNote:1 Includes claims with no recorded claim values

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/civil-justice/company-winding-up.htm




25

Table 1.9County courts (non-family work)‘Money’ claims issued for an unspecified amount in England and Wales, with percentage breakdown by claim value, 2006–2010 1

Percentage

Year

Total number

of claims issued

Value of claim

Lower bound (>) £0 £500 £1,000 £5,000 £15,000 £50,000 Other2

Upper bound (<=) £500 £1,000 £5,000 £15,000 £50,000 n/a

2006 145,195 1.2% 1.0% 47.8% 30.3% 10.8% 4.5% 4.5%

2007 144,128 1.3% 1.1% 47.9% 30.2% 10.9% 4.3% 4.3%

2008 160,248 1.0% 0.8% 48.5% 31.0% 10.4% 4.0% 4.4%

2009 178,969 1.1% 0.8% 49.1% 30.2% 10.7% 3.7% 4.4%

2010 190,582 0.5% 0.5% 51.5% 30.2% 10.6% 3.5% 3.1%

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CaseMan systemNotes:1 The claim value breakdown is derived from the claim issue fee paid2 Includes claims with either no recorded issue fee paid or with a recorded issue fee paid that doesn’t correspond to one of the claim value

ranges shown


26

Table 1.10County courts (non-family work)Summary statistics on claims defended and allocated to track, England and Wales, 2006–2010 1

Number of defences / allocations

YearNumber of

defences 2

Number of allocations to track 3

Small claims Fast track Multi track4 Total

2006 292,115 76,821 50,723 27,605 155,1492007 338,616 96,417 50,970 26,364 173,7512008 298,796 83,928 53,255 26,722 163,9052009 315,934 93,073 61,415 25,495 179,9832010 290,941 79,924 65,665 23,104 168,693

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CaseMan systemNotes:1 Where a claim is defended, further information is gathered before it is allocated to one of the three

case management ‘tracks’ shown depending on the value, complexity and importance of the case and the consequential level of judicial involvement required. There may be more than one defence or allocation to track in a case

2 The number of defences excludes those recorded on the grounds of the defendant having already paid the amount claimed. Despite some cases involving more than one defendant, it is much lower than the number of claims issued (see Table 1.1) because the vast majority of claims are not disputed

3 The number of allocations to track is lower than the number of defences primarily because defended cases are often settled/withdrawn before they are allocated to track

4 A new and higher claim value limit was introduced for fast track cases on 6th April 2009. Since 1999, claims have generally been allocated to the fast track which have a value exceeding the limit of the small claims track (£5,000 for most claim types) but not more than £15,000 (those with a value over £15,000 generally being allocated to the multi track). For all proceedings issued on or after 6th April 2009, the limit has been raised from £15,000 to £25,000


27

Tabl

e 1.1

1C

ount

y co

urts

(non

-fam

ily w

ork)

Num

ber o

f tria

l and

sm

all c

laim

hea

rings

; 1 as

a pe

rcen

tage

of a

lloca

tions

mad

e to

the

rele

vant

trac

k,

Engl

and

and

Wal

es, 2

006–

2010

Year

Tria

ls (f

ast a

nd m

ulti

trac

k)Sm

all c

laim

hea

rings

Tota

l hea

rings

Num

ber

as %

of

allo

catio

ns m

ade

to th

ese

‘trac

ks’ 2

Num

ber

as %

of

allo

catio

ns m

ade

to th

is ‘t

rack

’ 2N

umbe

ras

% o

f tot

al

allo

catio

ns2

2006

17,6

7523

%46

,872

61%

64,5

4742

%20

0718

,353

24%

53,2

3255

%71

,585

41%

2008

19,9

1625

%46

,519

55%

66,4

3541

%20

0920

,306

23%

46,9

6350

%67

,269

37%

2010

19,9

1522

%42

,786

54%

62,7

0137

%

Sour

ce:

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

Cas

eMan

sys

tem

and

man

ual r

etur

nsN

otes

:1

Ther

e m

ay b

e m

ore

than

one

tria

l or s

mal

l cla

im h

earin

g in

a c

ase

2 Th

e nu

mbe

rs o

f tria

ls a

nd s

mal

l cla

im h

earin

gs a

re m

uch

low

er th

an th

e re

spec

tive

num

bers

of a

lloca

tions

to tr

ack

in e

ach

year

(see

Tab

le 1

.10) b

ecau

se a

larg

e pr

opor

tion

of c

ases

are

set

tled/

with

draw

n be

twee

n al

loca

tion

to tr

ack

and

a sm

all c

laim

hea

ring

or tr

ial


28

Table 1.12County courts (non-family work)Small claim hearings, by claim type, England and Wales, 2006–2010

Number of hearings

Year

Type of case

Specified ‘money’ 1

Unspecified ‘money’ 2 Other Total

2006 44,202 2,328 342 46,8722007 50,725 2,179 328 53,2322008 44,359 1,900 260 46,5192009 45,006 1,659 298 46,9632010 40,861 1,549 376 42,786

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CaseMan systemNotes:1 Cases which were issued for a specified amount of money2 Cases which were issued for an unspecified amount of money

Table 1.13County courts (non-family work)Fast and multi-track trials, by claim type, England and Wales 2006–2010

Number of hearings

Year

Type of case



2006 3,164 12,203 2,308 17,6752007 3,353 12,750 2,250 18,3532008 3,696 14,018 2,202 19,9162009 3,657 14,662 1,987 20,3062010 3,797 14,125 1,993 19,915

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CaseMan systemNotes:1 Cases which were issued for a specified amount of money2 Cases which were issued for an unspecified amount of money


29

Tabl

e 1.1

4C

ount

y co

urts

(non

-fam

ily w

ork)

Aver

age

time

take

n to

reac

h tr

ials

/ sm

all c

laim

hea

rings

, and

est

imat

es o

f the

ir du

ratio

n, E

ngla

nd a

nd W

ales

, 20

06–2

010 1,

2

Smal

l Cla

im c

ases

Fast

and

mul

ti-t

rack

cas

es

Year

Tim

e be

twee

n is

sue

and

star

t of

sm

all c

laim

(w

eeks

) 3

Dur

atio

n of

sm

all c

laim

he

arin

gsSa

mpl

e si

ze

Tim

e be

twee

n is

sue

and

allo

catio

n to

tr

ack

(wee

ks) 3

Tim

e be

twee

n al

loca

tion

to

trac

k an

d tr

ial

(wee

ks) 3

Tim

e be

twee

n is

sue

and

tria

l (w

eeks

) 3,4

Dur

atio

n of

tria

lsSa

mpl

e si

ze

2006

2784

Min

s84

0 21

3250

4 H

ours

37

Min

s98

020

0727

83 M

ins

592

2132

493

Hou

rs 4

2 M

ins

492

2008

2977

Min

s1,

273

2132

483

Hou

rs 4

5 M

ins

758

2009

3177

Min

s89

1 21

3248

3 H

ours

49

Min

s82

220

1031

79 M

ins

1,15

4 21

3350

3 H

ours

53

Min

s90

0

Sour

ce:

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

Cas

eMan

sys

tem

and

cas

e ‘sa

mpl

ers’

for s

mal

l cla

ims

hear

ings

and

tria

lsN

otes

:1

All fi

gure

s for

hea

ring

dura

tions

are

der

ived

from

cas

e sa

mpl

ers

2 Fi

gure

s for

tim

e in

terv

als

betw

een

maj

or c

ase

mile

ston

es (i

ssue

, allo

catio

n an

d he

arin

g) a

re ta

ken

from

full

popu

latio

n da

ta3

Figu

res

rela

te to

cas

es w

hose

tria

ls o

r sm

all c

laim

hea

rings

took

pla

ce d

urin

g th

e re

leva

nt q

uart

er o

r yea

r. Fo

r man

y ca

ses t

he o

rigin

al d

ate

of is

sue

and

allo

catio

n da

te w

ill h

ave

been

in a

n ea

rlier

per

iod

4 Th

ese

figur

es a

re d

iffer

ent t

o th

e su

ms o

f the

ave

rage

tim

es b

etw

een

issu

e an

d al

loca

tion

to tr

ack

and

betw

een

allo

catio

n to

trac

k an

d tr

ial a

s no

t all

allo

catio

n to

trac

k de

tails

ar

e kn

own


30

Table 1.15County courts (non-family work)Number of judgments, 1 by default, 2 acceptance and determination 3, 4 by case type, England and Wales, 2006–2010

Number of judgments

Year

Type of case



2006 1,102,687 870 629 1,104,1862007 997,342 898 589 998,8292008 1,065,422 1,000 527 1,066,9492009 935,830 890 538 937,2582010 749,367 1097 728 751,192

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CaseMan system, Claim Production Centre and Money Claim OnlineNotes:1 Includes judgments by default, acceptance and determination made in the County Court Bulk Centre

and via Money Claim Online2 Following no response from the defendant within the allotted time period3 Judgments by acceptance and determination which follow the claimant accepting the defendant’s

offer to pay all or part of the amount owed4 Includes judgments by default, acceptance and determination made in the County Court Bulk Centre

and via Money Claim Online5 Cases which were issued for a specified amount of money6 Cases which were issued for an unspecified amount of money


31

Table 1.16County courts (non-family work)Number of judgments by default1, acceptance and determination2 by HMCTS area3, 2010

Number of judgments

Type of case

AreaSpecified ‘money’ 4


Avon & Somerset, Devon & Cornwall, and Gloucestershire 12,503 42 19 12,564Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Thames Valley 19,837 60 75 19,972

Cambridgeshire, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk 13,761 41 30 13,832

Cheshire and Merseyside 9,212 124 14 9,350

Cleveland, Durham and Northumbria 7,998 30 45 8,073

Cumbria and Lancashire 5,190 26 9 5,225

Dorset, Hampshire & Isle of Wight, and Wiltshire 15,602 61 28 15,691

East Midlands 16,111 268 20 16,399

Greater Manchester 15,176 87 33 15,296

Humber and South Yorkshire 10,768 28 106 10,902

Kent, Surrey and Sussex 15,396 51 166 15,613

London Civil and Family 32,236 108 88 32,432

Mid and West Wales 4,030 12 1 4,043

North and West Yorkshire 16,794 50 22 16,866

North Wales 2,048 11 1 2,060

South East Wales 6,433 41 10 6,484

West Mercia and Staffordshire 8,741 17 13 8,771

West Midlands and Warwickshire 13,677 40 48 13,765

County Court Bulk Centre and Money Claim Online 6 523,854 - - 523,854

Total 749,367 1,097 728 751,192

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CaseMan system, Claim Production Centre and Money Claim OnlineNotes:1 Following no response from the defendant within the allotted time period2 Judgments by acceptance and determination which follow the claimant accepting the defendant’s offer to pay all or part of the amount owed3 The figures are based on the new HMCTS areas, as per the 2010 restructuring of administrative arrangements4 Cases which were issued for a specified amount of money5 Cases which were issued for an unspecified amount of money6 These judgments by default, acceptance and determination are made in the name of Northampton county court


32

Table 1.17Registry of County Court JudgmentsNumber of judgments registered in claims for a specified amount of money, satisfied and cancelled, by type, England and Wales, 2006–2010 1

Number of judgments

Consumer judgments (i.e. individuals)

Commercial judgments (i.e. businesses) Total

Year Registered Satisfied 2 Cancelled 3 Registered Satisfied 2 Cancelled 3 Registered Satisfied 2 Cancelled 3

2006 843,853 108,079 55,626 178,313 20,586 33,994 1,022,166 128,665 89,620

2007 796,528 106,151 49,905 185,395 22,195 35,523 981,923 128,346 85,428

2008 827,880 95,676 41,618 192,056 20,708 35,341 1,019,936 116,384 76,959

2009 707,942 87,424 44,367 207,101 20,166 37,902 915,043 107,590 82,269

2010 579,704 90,834 47,367 150,915 17,411 30,204 730,619 108,245 77,571

Source:Registry Trust LtdNotes:1 Excludes judgments made for the non-payment of road tax between in 2006 and 2007 (these amounting to £83,000 in

2006 and £6,000 in 2007)2 The judgment debt has been paid in full3 A judgment registration can be cancelled when it is made in error, set aside, reversed, paid before the court date in full

within one month

Table 1.18Registry of County Court JudgmentsNumber of register searches made, 1 by search method, in England and Wales, 2006–2010

Number of searches

Year Postal Personal 2 Internet 3 Total

2006 16,228 4,376 16,205 36,8092007 11,097 3,784 22,220 37,1012008 7,726 2,521 29,080 39,3272009 3,718 92 58,525 62,3352010 2,356 - 70,499 72,855

Source:Registry Trust LtdNote:1 These searches were mainly carried out by individuals searching for themselves or others or by agents acting for law firms2 Due to the uptake of the internet facility the public counter was closed in August 20093 Internet searches became available in 2005


33

Table 1.19County court (enforcement work)Number of warrants issued, 1, 2 by type, England and Wales, 2006–2010

Number of warrants

Year Execution 3 Delivery 4 Possession 5 Committal 6

2006 340,078 2,121 144,990 1,7572007 310,178 2,359 146,120 1,6472008 294,823 2,500 159,337 1,3532009 236,293 2,307 139,131 1,1032010 150,828 2,179 124,914 1,387

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CaseMan system, Claim Production Centre, Money Claim Online and Possession Claim OnlineNotes:1 Excludes the re-issuing of warrants2 Includes warrants issued in the County Court Bulk Centre, Money Claim Online and Possession Claim Online3 Allows saleable items owned by the debtor to be sold unless the amount due under the warrant is paid4 For the return of goods or items5 For the repossession of property6 For enforcing an order where the penalty for failing to comply is imprisonment. It authorises the bailiff to arrest and deliver the person to

prison or to the court

Table 1.20County court (enforcement work)Amounts issued and recovered from warrants of execution, 1 England and Wales, 2006–2010

Year

Amount issued in correctly directed 2

warrants (£)

Amount received in correctly directed 2

warrants (£)

Amount issued in all

warrants (£)

Amount received in all

warrants (£)

Pence-per-pound recovered on correctly

directed 2 warrants

Pence-per-pound recovered on all

warrants

2006 47,151,671 42,905,286 211,262,049 46,173,497 91.0 21.9

2007 44,191,558 39,570,109 204,649,725 42,592,414 89.5 20.8

2008 40,838,478 34,035,170 210,876,807 36,927,906 83.3 17.5

2009 39,453,880 29,746,118 211,417,150 32,833,337 75.4 15.5

2010 26,088,195 20,976,495 103,845,889 22,522,289 80.4 21.7

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CaseMan systemNotes:1 Allows saleable items owned by the debtor to be sold unless the amount due under the warrant is paid2 Warrants for which the creditor has specified the correct address


34

Table 1.21County court (enforcement work)Number of repossessions 1 of property by county court bailiffs, 2 by type, England and Wales, 2006–2010

Number of repossessions

Type of case

YearMortgage

repossession 3

Social landlord

repossession

Private landlord

repossessionAccelerated

repossession Other Total

2006 21,017 23,179 4,120 6,775 2,297 57,388

2007 23,894 20,667 4,356 7,557 2,104 58,578

2008 35,823 20,249 4,445 7,575 2,074 70,166

2009 32,468 18,309 4,623 5,079 2,077 62,556

2010 23,622 16,864 5,291 5,763 2,190 53,730

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CaseMan system and Possession Claim OnlineNotes:1 The vast majority of warrant of possession outcomes are repossession, the warrant being suspended by an order

made by the court and the warrant being withdrawn2 Includes warrants issued via Possession Claim Online3 These figures differ from those provided by Council of Mortgage Lenders (www.cml.org.uk) for a number of reasons

including the latter including ‘voluntary’ repossessions (where the property has been repossessed without the need for a bailiff), being shown on a UK basis but excluding repossessions by lenders who are not CML members

www.cml.org.uk


35

Tabl

e 1.

22C

ount

y co

urt (

enfo

rcem

ent w

ork)

Enfo

rcem

ent-

rela

ted

orde

rs a

pplie

d fo

r and

mad

e, E

ngla

nd a

nd W

ales

, 200

6–20

10N

umbe

r of a

pplic

atio

ns /

orde

rs

Year

Atta

chm

ent o

f ear

ning

s or

ders

1, 2

Third

par

ty d

ebt o

rder

s 3C

harg

ing

orde

rs 4

Ord

ers

for

Sale

5

Adm

inis

trat

ion

orde

rs 6

Ord

ers t

o ob

tain

in

form

atio

n fr

om ju

dgm

ent

debt

ors 8

Appl

icatio

nsO

rder

s mad

e 2Ap

plica

tions

Ord

ers m

ade

Appl

icatio

nsO

rder

s mad

eAp

plica

tions

Ord

ers m

ade 7

2006

85,3

2866

,477

6,55

41,

828

92,9

3367

,090

-3,

181

4,48

028

,462

2007

82,0

1962

,125

6,47

41,

813

131,

637

97,0

26-

2,40

73,

683

27,14

8

2008

73,8

4560

,588

7,564

2,04

116

4,81

213

5,70

2-

2,06

52,

795

30,2

61

2009

72,3

1661

,336

7,137

2,17

612

7,179

111,

311

-1,

948

2,01

929

,672

2010

54,2

0046

,684

4,31

51,

500

108,

847

93,6

1950

779

71,

124

22,8

11

Sour

ce:

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

Cas

eMan

sys

tem

and

man

ual r

etur

nsN

otes

:1

Atta

chm

ent o

f ear

ning

s’ o

rder

s obl

ige

the

debt

or’s

empl

oyer

to d

educ

t a s

et s

um fr

om th

e de

btor

’s pa

y an

d fo

rwar

d it

to th

e co

urt

2 In

clud

es th

e m

akin

g of

var

ied

orde

rs a

nd s

uspe

nded

ord

ers

enab

ling

the

debt

or to

mak

e pa

ymen

ts in

to c

ourt

dire

ctly

but

upo

n fa

ilure

to d

o so

will

resu

lt in

the

debt

or’s

empl

oyer

be

ing

cont

acte

d3

Third

par

ty d

ebt o

rder

s se

cure

pay

men

t by

free

zing

and

then

sei

zing

mon

ey o

wed

or p

ayab

le b

y a

third

par

ty to

a d

ebto

r4

Char

ging

ord

ers o

btai

n se

curit

y fo

r the

pay

men

t aga

inst

a p

rope

rty

owne

d by

the

debt

or5

A co

urt o

rder

forc

ing

the

debt

or to

sel

l an

asse

t(s)

, typ

ical

ly a

pro

pert

y, fo

llow

ing

a ch

argi

ng o

rder

. The

se d

ata

are

only

ava

ilabl

e fr

om Ju

ly 2

009

6 Ad

min

istr

atio

n or

ders

ena

ble

a de

btor

to c

ombi

ne a

judg

men

t deb

t and

at l

east

one

oth

er d

ebt (

with

tota

l ind

ebte

dnes

s no

t exc

eedi

ng £

5,00

0) in

to a

sin

gle

orde

r for

the

mak

ing

of

regu

lar p

aym

ents

to th

e co

urt t

o be

dis

trib

uted

to th

e cr

edito

rs in

the

appr

opria

te p

ropo

rtio

ns li

sted

by

the

debt

or7

Mul

tiple

ord

ers

may

be

mad

e fo

llow

ing

an a

pplic

atio

n e.

g. w

here

an

orig

inal

ord

er is

revo

ked

and

then

re-in

stat

ed

8 Fo

rmer

ly k

now

n as

the

the

oral

exa

min

atio

n pr

oced

ure

whi

ch w

as c

hang

ed o

n 26

Mar

ch 2

002,

the

proc

ess

bein

g st

ream

lined

and

sta

ndar

dise

d to

ena

ble

info

rmat

ion

to b

e ob

tain

ed

fast

er


36

Chapter 2

Family matters

Family matters | Chapter 2

38

Chapter 2 - Family matters

This chapter refers to family proceedings across all tiers of court

Family law is the area of law that deals with:

local authority intervention to protect children (public law) •

parental disputes concerning the upbringing of children (private law) •

decrees relating to marriage •

financial provisions for children after divorce or relationship breakdown •

domestic violence remedies •

adoption. •

All family matters are dealt with at Family Proceedings Courts (which are part of the magistrates’ courts), at county courts or in the Family Division of the High Court. Magistrates undergo specialist training before they sit in Family Proceedings Courts where procedures are very different from the criminal courts. Most matters affecting children are dealt with under the Children Act 1989 in all three levels of courts.

Information on the data sources used for the family court statistics can be found in Annex A. Explanations for some of the main terms used in this section can be found in the Glossary. The tables of detailed data can be found immediately following this section of commentary.


There were 24,300 children involved in public law applications in 2010; a •decrease of six per cent compared with 2009. This decrease follows a peak in applications received in 2009, when there was significant media coverage of local authority child protection practice.

The total number of children involved in private law applications decreased •by eleven per cent compared with 2009, from 137,500 to 122,800. This decrease is a reversal of the recent upward trend in applications since 2005.

There were 133,500 petitions filed for dissolution of marriage in 2010, an •increase of one per cent compared with the previous year; whilst the number of divorces increased by five per cent, a reversal of the recent downward trend.

Applications in county courts for domestic violence remedies decreased by •eight per cent in 2010 compared with 2009. This included applications for non-molestation orders which decreased by six per cent and applications for occupation orders which decreased by 14 per cent.


39

Matters affecting children: Public Law applications

Public law cases are those brought by local authorities or an authorised person (currently only the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) and include matters such as care, supervision and emergency protection orders.

Care orders

A care order brings the child into the care of the applicant local authority and cannot be made in favour of any other party. The care order gives the local authority parental responsibility for the child and gives the local authority the power to determine the extent to which the child’s parents and others with parental responsibility (who do not lose their parental responsibility on the making of the order) may meet their responsibility. The making of a care order, with respect to a child who is the subject of any section 8 order, discharges that order.

Supervision orders

A supervision order places the child under the supervision of the local authority or probation officer. While a supervision order is in force, it is the duty of the supervisor to advise, assist and befriend the child and take the necessary action to give effect to the order, including whether or not to apply for its variation or discharge.

Emergency Protection Orders

An emergency protection order is used to secure the immediate safety of a child by removing the child to a place of safety, or by preventing the child’s removal from a place of safety. Anyone, including a local authority, can apply for an emergency protection order if, for example, they believe that access to the child is being unreasonably refused.

Under the relevant allocation of proceedings rules for family law, public law cases must start in the Family Proceedings Courts but may be transferred to the county courts in the following circumstances:

to minimise delay •

to consolidate with other family proceedings •

where the matter is exceptionally grave, complex or important •

In 2010, there were 24,300 children were involved in public law applications, a decrease of six per cent compared with 2009 (25,800) (Table 2.1). This was due primarily to a nine per cent decrease in overall applications received in Family Proceedings Courts, which received 74 per cent of the total number of applications.


40

Between 2009 and 2010 there was a decrease in the number of applications for care orders (six per cent), emergency protection orders (25 per cent), and supervision orders (14 per cent) – see Table 2.3.

Children involved in Public Law applications, by tier of court, 2006-2010

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2009 20102006 2007 2008

Number of children involved

Family Proceedings Courts County Courts High Courts

Public law application statistics are shown in Tables 2.1 to 2.3.

Matters affecting children: Private Law applications

Private law cases are those brought by private individuals, generally in connection with divorce or the parents’ separation. Order types include parental responsibility, ‘Section 8’ orders (referring to the relevant section of the Children Act 1989), financial applications and special guardianship orders.

Parental responsibility

Section 3(1) of the Children Act 1989 defines parental responsibility as “all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property”. Parental responsibility allows parents to make important decisions about their children’s lives.


41

Section 8 orders include

residence – settles where the child should live and can be made in favour of •anyone except a local authority. A residence order also gives the person named in the order parental responsibility for the child.

contact – this order requires the person with whom the child lives to allow •the child to have contact with the person named on the order. It can be granted to anyone except a local authority.

prohibited steps – this order can be used to direct someone not to take •specific action in relation to the child without the consent of the court. It could be used, for example, to stop a parent from moving the child to another country.

specific issue – this order determines specific aspects as to the child’s •upbringing, for example, which religion s/he should be brought up in.

Special Guardianship

The Adoption and Children Act 2002 introduced special guardianship orders, which give the special guardian legal parental responsibility for the child without taking away parental responsibility from the birth parents. This means that the child is no longer the responsibility of the local authority. The special guardian takes responsibility for all the day to day decisions and only needs to consult with the birth parents in exceptional circumstances.

In 2010, there were 122,800 children involved in private law applications, a decrease of 11 per cent compared with 2009 when there were 137,500, and a return to the level seen in 2008 (Table 2.1).

Within the overall figures for 2010, applications for contact orders decreased by 13 per cent, applications for residence orders decreased by ten per cent and applications for prohibited steps orders decreased by three per cent, compared with 2009 (Table 2.3).


42

Children involved in Private Law applications, by tier of court, 2006-2010

140,000

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

2009 20102006 2007 2008

Number of children involved

Family Proceedings Courts County Courts High Courts

Private law application statistics are shown in Tables 2.1 to 2.3.

Disposal of Public and Private Law applications

A new compilation methodology has been introduced for the public and private law disposals data for 2008 onwards, and previously-published statistics for 2008 to 2009 have been revised as a result – further details are in Annex A.

There are four ways in which an order can be disposed of:

withdrawn applications – applications can only be withdrawn by order of the •court

order refused – in public law proceedings an order is refused if the grounds •are not proved and the court has dismissed the application. In private law proceedings the court may refuse to make an order or make an order of no order

order of no order – this is made if the court has applied the principle of non- •intervention under section 1(5) of the Act. This provides that the court shall not make an order unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than not making an order at all

order made. •


43

In 2010, there were 24,400 children involved in disposals of public law cases, an increase of 14 per cent from the revised figure for 2009 (21,300). Just over a third of all the public law disposals were for care and substitute supervision for care orders (8,500).

There was a seven per cent increase in the number of children involved in disposals of private law cases – from the revised 151,300 for 2009 to 162,500 in 2010. The majority of these disposals were for contact orders (95,500).

Public and Private law disposal statistics are shown in Table 2.4.

Statistics on the time taken to complete care and supervision cases in the family courts of England and Wales is published in MoJ’s bulletin ‘Court Statistics Quarterly’. The relevant table gives summary statistics showing the time, in weeks, between the date an application for a care or supervision order was lodged and the date a care, supervision, or other substantive order was made in the case, for those cases disposed of during each quarter from quarter 2 (April-June) 2010. The bulletin can be found on the MoJ website at:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/courts-and-sentencing/judicial-quarterly.htm

Matrimonial matters

There are two ways to dissolve a marriage. The vast majority is with a decree absolute of divorce, which ends a valid marriage. The other is a decree of nullity, which declares that the marriage itself is void, i.e. no valid marriage ever existed, or voidable, i.e. the marriage was valid unless annulled. No petition may be made for divorce within the first year of marriage.

Divorce

To obtain a decree of divorce the marriage must be proved to have broken down irretrievably. This must be done on proof of one or more of the following facts:

(a) adultery

(b) behaviour with which the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live

(c) desertion of at least two years

(d) two years separation where the respondent consents

(e) five years separation without consent.

Nullity

A void marriage is one that is legally invalid because, for example:

(a) either party was under the age of sixteen at the time of the marriage




44

(b) either party was already married

(c) the parties are prohibited from marrying, for example father and daughter.

Examples of voidable marriages are those:

(a) not consummated due to incapacity or wilful refusal (most nullities are on these grounds)

(b) where one party was suffering from a venereal disease in a communicable form, or was pregnant by someone else at the time of marriage.

There were 133,500 petitions filed for dissolution of marriage in 2010; a slight increase of one per cent compared to 2009 and a continuation of the upward trend seen in 2009 (Table 2.5).

The number of decrees absolute granted for dissolution of marriage increased by five per cent, from 115,200 (revised) in 2009 to 121,300 in 2010, which now reflects a reversal from the recent downward trend as seen for petitions.

Please note that the matrimonial matters statistics for 2009 in Table 2.5 are subject to revision following the detection of a data inputting error at Bristol county court. Please see Annex A for more details.

Dissolution of Marriage: Petitions and Decrees Absolute Granted, 2006-2010

160,000

140,000

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

2009 20102006 2007 2008

Number of cases

Decrees absolute Petitions


45

Statistics on the number of divorces occurring each year in England and Wales are also published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Please see Annex A for more explanation of the differences between the ONS figures and the statistics presented here.

Judicial Separation

An alternative to divorce is a decree of judicial separation. This does not dissolve the marriage but absolves the parties from the obligation to live together. This procedure might, for instance, be used if religious beliefs forbid or discourage divorce.

In 2010 there were 300 petitions filed for judicial separation, a decrease of 17 per cent compared with the previous year, and continuing the steady downward trend.

Table 2.5 shows summary statistics on matrimonial proceedings from 2006 to 2010.

Ancillary relief

During or after a divorce, the annulment of a marriage (nullity) or judicial separation, there may still be a need for the court to settle disputes over money or property. The court can make a financial order. This is known as ancillary relief and may deal with the sale or transfer of property, maintenance payments (for example weekly or monthly maintenance), a lump sum payment and/or a pension sharing or attachment order.

In 2010 a total of 82,300 applications for ancillary relief were disposed of; an increase of 3 per cent from the 79,900 recorded for 2009. Of the disposals made in 2010, the majority (73 per cent) were not contested (Table 2.6), while a further 22 per cent of orders were made by consent after initially being contested. Most disposals made in 2010 were for property adjustment orders (26,900) or lump sum orders (24,700).

Over half (55 per cent) of those cases which were contested or initially contested were in respect of one or more children (Table 2.7).

The numbers of disposals for ancillary relief applications are shown in Tables 2.6 and 2.7.

Other orders for financial provision are not dependent upon divorce proceedings and may be made for children.

The Child maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 led to the creation of the Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission (CMEC) which replaced the Child Support Agency (CSA), although the CSA retained its existing caseload. The Act also removed the requirement for all parents in receipt of benefit to go through the CMEC even if they could reach agreement. Parents who were not on benefit


46

were previously allowed to come to courts for consent orders. This change is likely to increase the number of parties that come to court for maintenance consent orders.

Domestic violence

Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 provides single and unified domestic violence remedies in county courts and magistrates’ courts, with the vast majority carried out in the former. A range of people can apply to the court: spouses, cohabitants, ex-cohabitants, those who live or have lived in the same household (other than by reason of one of them being the other’s employee, tenant, lodger or boarder), certain relatives (e.g. parents, grandparents, in-laws, brothers, sisters), and those who have agreed to marry one another.

Two types of order can be granted:

a non-molestation order, which can either prohibit particular behaviour or •general molestation;

an occupation order, which can define or regulate rights of occupation of the •home.

Where the court makes an occupation order and it appears to the court that the respondent has used or threatened violence against the applicant or child, then the court must attach a power of arrest unless it is satisfied that the applicant or child will be adequately protected without such a power. In July 2007, section 1 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 came into force, making the breach of a non-molestation order a criminal offence. A power of arrest is therefore no longer required on a non-molestation order but instead include a penal notice.

The court may also add an exclusion requirement to an emergency protection order or interim care order made under the Children Act 1989. This means a suspected abuser may be removed from the home, rather than the child.

Please note that the statistics presented in this report relate to applications for, and grants of, the above domestic violence order types by the family courts. They do not relate to prosecutions or convictions for criminal offences regarding matters of domestic violence, nor do they cover prosecutions or convictions for breaching a non-molestation order.

Applications made in the county courts for domestic violence remedies decreased by eight per cent in 2010 compared with 2009; from 26,000 to 23,900 applications (Table 2.8).

Within this overall decrease, applications for non-molestation orders decreased by six per cent (from 18,900 to 17,800), while applications for occupation orders decreased by 14 per cent (from 7,100 to 6,100).


47

A total of 24,100 domestic violence orders were made in county courts in 2010, a decrease of three per cent from the 24,900 made in 2009 (Table 2.9). As the breach of a non-molestation order was made a criminal and arrestable offence from July 2007, with the power of arrest inherent within it, it became no longer necessary for courts to attach a separate power of arrest to these orders.

Statistics on domestic violence applications and orders made are shown in Tables 2.8 and 2.9.

Forced Marriage Protection Orders

The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 came into force on 25 November 2008. The Act amended Part IV of the Family Law Act to enable 15 designated county courts (as well as the High Court) to make Forced Marriage Protection Orders to prevent forced marriages from occurring and to offer protection to victims who might have already been forced into a marriage. Statistics for these orders are presented in this volume for the first time in Table 2.10.

A total of 217 applications for an FMPO have been made since their introduction up to the end of 2010, with 257 orders made in the same period. The number of orders made generally exceeds the number of applications as FMPOs are sometimes made during the course of applications for other family orders, and there is no differentiation between interim orders and final orders.

Probate

The Probate Service forms part of the Family Division of the High Court. It deals with ‘non-contentious’ probate business (i.e. where there is no dispute about the validity of a will or entitlement to take a grant), and issues grants of representation – either probate (when the deceased person left a valid will) or letters of administration (usually when there is no valid will). These grants appoint people – known as personal representatives – to administer the deceased person’s estate.

The Probate Service is currently made up of the Principal Registry in London, 11 District Probate Registries and 18 Probate Sub-Registries throughout England and Wales. There are also a number of Probate offices which are opened between once a week and once every two months to provide a local service for personal applicants.

In 2010, 246,600 grants of representation were issued; down from the 254,200 grants issued in 2009, and 21 per cent down from the peak of 311,100 seen in 2006.

In 2010, 88,400 of the grants were personal applications and 158,200 were made by solicitors. In 84 per cent of all cases for 2010 (206,500) the deceased left a will.

Summary caseload statistics for the Probate service are shown in Tables 2.11 and 2.12.


48

Table 2.1Family mattersMatters affecting children: Number of children involved in Public and Private Law applications, made in each tier of court, 2006–2010 1, 2

Number of children

Year

Public law Private law 3

FPC 4, 5 CC HC Total FPC 5 CC HC Total

2006 13,660 6,500 360 20,510 16,410 93,920 1,180 111,5102007 13,640 5,630 380 19,650 19,190 94,650 1,000 114,8402008 14,200 5,180 380 19,760 18,040 101,440 1,020 120,5002009 19,760 5,770 290 25,810 27,670 108,670 1,150 137,4802010 18,000 5,890 370 24,250 21,680 100,470 670 122,820

Source:HMCTS FamilyMan system and summary returnsNotes:Abbreviations: FPC = Family Proceedings Court, CC = county court, HC = High Court1 Figures relate to the number of children subject to each application2 Figures have been rounded to the nearest ten. Totals may not add up due to rounding3 Private Law applications exclude adoptions4 There are known data quality problems with the figures for the Family Proceedings Courts. A new data collection method,

introduced in April 2007, has made some improvements to the completeness of data5 Special Guardianship Orders figures in the Family Proceedings Courts are only available for those courts which share

premises and administrative systems with county courts. The total has therefore been estimated based on the proportion of the total public law and private law applications made in each tier of court


49

Table 2.2Family mattersMatters affecting children: Number of children involved in Public and Private Law applications, made in each tier of court by HMCTS region, 2010 1, 2

Number of children

Region

Public law Private law 3

FPC 4 CC HC Total FPC 4 CC HC Total

London 2,650 530 80 3,270 1,660 15,500 320 17,470Midlands 2,590 710 40 3,340 5,320 14,790 70 20,180North East 3,780 900 40 4,720 2,970 17,910 50 20,930North West 2,690 980 60 3,730 4,090 14,820 60 18,960South East 2,910 1,400 20 4,330 2,040 22,070 70 24,180South West 2,080 830 70 2,980 3,000 12,120 80 15,200Wales 1,280 540 60 1,880 2,600 3,260 30 5,890

England & Wales

18,000 5,890 370 24,250 21,680 100,470 670 122,820

Source:HMCTS FamilyMan system and summary returnsNotes:Abbreviations: FPC = Family Proceedings Court, CC = county court, HC = High Court1 Figures relate to the number of children subject to each application2 Figures have been rounded to the nearest ten. Totals may not add up due to rounding3 Private Law applications exclude adoptions4 Special Guardianship Orders figures in the Family Proceedings Courts are only available for those courts which share premises and

administrative systems with county courts. The total has therefore been estimated based on the proportion of the total public law and private law applications made in each tier of court


50

Table 2.3Family mattersMatters affecting children: Number of children involved in applications made, by whether Private or Public law, type and tier of court, 2010 1,2

Number of children

Application type

Public Law Private Law

FPC 3, 4 CC HC Total%

Change 5 FPC 3, 4 CC HC Total%

Change 5

Secure accommodation 280 90 10 390 -7% - - - - -

Care 13,560 2,370 80 16,010 -6% - - - - -

Discharge of care 220 720 20 960 -18% - - - - -

Substitute Supervision Order for a Care Order 10 * 0 10 - - - - - -

Supervision order 600 210 10 820 -14% - - - - -

Supervision order – discharge 10 * 0 10 - - - - - -

Contact with a child in care 270 420 40 730 -2% - - - - -

Authority to refuse Contact with a child in care 130 380 50 560 9% - - - - -

Education Supervision 220 * 0 220 -6% - - - - -

Child assessment orders 30 60 0 90 50% - - - - -

Emergency protection order 1,570 80 * 1,660 -25% - - - - -

Extension of emergency protection order 50 0 0 50 -48% - - - - -

Discharge of emergency protection order 10 10 0 20 - - - - - -

Recovery orders 110 110 20 230 13% - - - - -

Parental responsibility 70 120 20 210 6% 2,240 5,170 20 7,430 -24%

Section 8

Residence 240 440 40 720 3% 5,850 34,360 220 40,420 -10%

Contact 240 670 60 970 4% 11,290 34,870 190 46,350 -13%

Prohibited steps 20 30 * 50 -15% 890 16,740 110 17,730 -3%

Specific issue 50 90 20 160 4% 840 7,550 120 8,510 -8%

Financial applications - - - - - 350 700 * 1,050 -2%

Special Guardianship Orders 6 310 100 * 410 417% 230 1,080 10 1,320 -2%

Total 18,000 5,890 370 24,250 -6% 21,680 100,470 670 122,820 -11%

Source:HMCTS FamilyMan system and summary returnsNotes:Abbreviations: FPC = Family Proceedings Court, CC = county court, HC = High Court1 Figures relate to the number of children subject to each application2 Figures have been rounded to the nearest ten. Figures under 5 are marked with an asterisk. Totals may not add up due to rounding3 There are known data quality problems with the figures for the Family Proceedings Courts. A new data collection method, introduced in April 2007, has made

some improvements to the completeness of data4 Special Guardianship Orders figures in the Family Proceedings Courts are only available for those courts which share premises and administrative systems with

county courts. The total has therefore been estimated based on the proportion of the total public law and private law applications made in each tier of court5 Compared with revised 2009 figures, and based on unrounded data. Percentage changes are not provided where there are less than 20 observations in either

period6 Special Guardianship Orders figures in the Family Proceedings Courts are only available for those courts which share premises and administrative systems with

county courts. The total has therefore been estimated based on the proportion of the total public law and private law applications made in each tier of court


51

Tabl

e 2.

4Fa

mily

mat

ters

Mat

ters

affe

ctin

g ch

ildre

n: N

umbe

r of c

hild

ren

in d

ispos

als i

n al

l tie

rs o

f cou

rt, b

y ty

pe o

f disp

osal

and

whe

ther

Priv

ate

or P

ublic

law

, 201

0 1, 2,

3

Num

ber o

f chi

ldre

n

Ord

er ty

pe

Publ

ic L

awPr

ivat

e La

w

Type

of d

ispos

al

Tota

l di

spos

als 4,

5

Type

of d

ispos

al

Tota

l di

spos

als 4,

5

Appl

icat

ions

w

ithdr

awn

Ord

ers

refu

sed

Ord

ers o

f no

ord

ers

Ord

ers

mad

eAp

plic

atio

ns

with

draw

nO

rder

s re

fuse

dO

rder

s of

no o

rder

sO

rder

s m

ade

Secu

re a

ccom

mod

atio

n10

*10

480

510

- -

- -

-

Care

and

Sub

stitu

te S

uper

visio

n fo

r Car

e30

010

330

7,82

08,

450

- -

- -

-

Disc

harg

e of

car

e or

der

8020

1049

059

0 -

- -

- -

Supe

rvisi

on o

rder

40*

303,

370

3,45

0 -

- -

- -

Supe

rvisi

on o

rder

– d

ischa

rge

00

010

10 -

- -

- -

Cont

act w

ith a

chi

ld in

car

e70

2010

230

320

- -

- -

-

Auth

ority

to re

fuse

Con

tact

with

a ch

ild in

care

10*

*56

058

0 -

- -

- -

Educ

atio

n Su

perv

ision

100

015

016

0 -

- -

- -

Child

ass

essm

ent o

rder

s0

00

2020

- -

- -

-

Emer

genc

y pr

otec

tion

orde

r23

050

401,

030

1,35

0 -

- -

- -

Exte

nsio

n of

em

erge

ncy

prot

ectio

n or

der

10*

*60

70 -

- -

- -

Disc

harg

e of

em

erge

ncy

prot

ectio

n or

der

00

010

10 -

- -

- -

Reco

very

ord

ers

*0

*25

026

0 -

- -

- -


52

Num

ber o

f chi

ldre

n

Ord

er ty

pe

Publ

ic L

awPr

ivat

e La

w

Type

of d

ispos

al

Tota

l di

spos

als 4,

5

Type

of d

ispos

al

Tota

l di

spos

als 4,

5

Appl

icat

ions

w

ithdr

awn

Ord

ers

refu

sed

Ord

ers o

f no

ord

ers

Ord

ers

mad

eAp

plic

atio

ns

with

draw

nO

rder

s re

fuse

dO

rder

s of

no o

rder

sO

rder

s m

ade

Pare

ntal

resp

onsib

ility

100

*75

076

035

050

605,

520

5,98

0

Sect

ion

8

Resid

ence

4010

*2,

970

3,02

01,

090

120

380

35,3

9036

,970

Cont

act

4020

302,

180

2,26

02,

190

300

840

92,1

3095

,460

Proh

ibite

d st

eps

*0

039

040

038

040

130

15,7

7016

,320

Spec

ific

issue

*0

020

020

025

020

805,

640

5,99

0

Fina

ncia

l app

licat

ions

--

--

-11

010

3074

088

0

Spec

ial G

uard

ians

hip

Ord

ers 6

00

01,

970

1,97

020

1010

900

930

Tota

l85

013

047

022

,920

24,3

704,

380

550

1,51

015

6,09

016

2,54

0

Sour

ce:

HM

CTS

Fam

ilyM

an s

yste

m a

nd s

umm

ary

retu

rns

Not

es:

1 Fi

gure

s re

late

to th

e nu

mbe

r of c

hild

ren

subj

ect t

o ea

ch a

pplic

atio

n2

A ne

w c

ompi

latio

n m

etho

dolo

gy h

as b

een

intr

oduc

ed fo

r the

pub

lic a

nd p

rivat

e la

w d

ispo

sals

dat

a fo

r 200

8 on

war

ds –

and

pre

viou

sly

publ

ishe

d st

atis

tics f

or 2

008

and

2009

hav

e be

en re

vise

d as

a

resu

lt. P

leas

e se

e A

nnex

A fo

r mor

e de

tails

.3

Figu

res

have

bee

n ro

unde

d to

the

near

est t

en. F

igur

es u

nder

5 a

re m

arke

d w

ith a

n as

teris

k. T

otal

s m

ay n

ot a

dd u

p du

e to

roun

ding

4 Th

e nu

mbe

r of d

ispo

sals

sho

wn

in th

e ta

ble

abov

e ar

e no

t equ

al to

the

corr

espo

ndin

g nu

mbe

r of a

pplic

atio

ns m

ade

durin

g th

e ye

ar, b

ecau

se:

– di

spos

als

in 2

009

may

rela

te to

app

licat

ions

mad

e in

ear

lier y

ears

, and

– an

app

licat

ion

of o

ne ty

pe m

ay le

ad to

an

orde

r of a

diff

eren

t typ

e be

ing

mad

e5

Ther

e ar

e kn

own

data

qua

lity

prob

lem

s with

the

figur

es fo

r the

Fam

ily P

roce

edin

gs C

ourt

s. A

new

dat

a co

llect

ion

met

hod,

intr

oduc

ed in

Apr

il 20

07, h

as m

ade

som

e im

prov

emen

ts to

the

com

plet

enes

s of

data

6 Sp

ecia

l Gua

rdia

nshi

p O

rder

s figu

res

in th

e Fa

mily

Pro

ceed

ings

Cou

rts

are

only

ava

ilabl

e fo

r tho

se c

ourt

s whi

ch s

hare

pre

mis

es a

nd a

dmin

istr

ativ

e sy

stem

s with

cou

nty

cour

ts. T

he to

tal h

as th

eref

ore

been

est

imat

ed b

ased

on

the

prop

ortio

n of

the

tota

l pub

lic la

w a

nd p

rivat

e la

w a

pplic

atio

ns m

ade

in e

ach

tier o

f cou

rt

Tabl

e 2.

4 co

ntin

ued


53

Table 2.5Family mattersSummary statistics on matrimonial proceedings, 2006–2010 1, 2

Number of cases

2006 2007 3 2008 3 2009 3, 4 2010 % Change 5

Dissolution of marriagePetition filed 147,236 136,187 128,837 132,148 r 133,499 1%Decrees nisi 135,233 132,987 120,868 119,260 r 125,345 5%Decrees absolute 132,782 128,953 122,661 115,174 r 121,265 5%

Nullity of marriagePetition filed 388 336 331 291 r 298 2%Decrees nisi 239 189 214 197 166 -16%Decrees absolute 244 193 200 198 r 156 -21%

Judicial separationPetition filed 605 499 421 362 r 300 -17%Decrees granted 324 304 214 198 171 -14%

Source:HMCTS FamilyMan systemNotes:1 More detailed statistics on divorces in England and Wales are available from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) at: http://

www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/population/families/marriages--cohabitations--civil-partnerships-and-divorces. Data in ONS publications are based on marriage and adoption data provided by the General Register Office and divorce data provided by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service

2 Statistics on the number of divorces occurring each year in England and Wales are also published by the ONS. There are small differences between the number of divorces as recorded by the two sets of statistics: 1.2 per cent for 2009 data. Please see Annex A for more details

3 Figures from 2007 include dissolutions of civil partnerships4 Statistics for 2009 are subject to revision following the detection of a data inputting error at Bristol County Court. Please see

Annex A for more details5 Compared with published 2009 figures

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/population/families/marriages--cohabitations--civil-partnerships-and-divorces

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/population/families/marriages--cohabitations--civil-partnerships-and-divorces


54

Table 2.6Family mattersDisposal of applications for ancillary relief made in the county courts, by type and whether contested or uncontested, 2010 1

Number of disposals

Disposal Uncontested 2

Initially contested, subsequently

consented Contested Total

Periodical payments 8,817 2,535 642 11,994

Lump sum orders 18,437 5,199 1,020 24,656

Property adjustment orders 19,157 6,292 1,454 26,903

Pension sharing or attachment orders 7,852 1,989 364 10,205

Secure Provision Order 4,003 896 125 5,024

Maintenance pending suit 1,583 394 279 2,256

Application dismissed - 869 383 1,252

Total Disposals3 59,849 18,174 4,267 82,290

Source:HMCTS FamilyMan systemNotes:1 Uncontested applications do not have a court hearing2 Figures relate to the number of disposals for each type of ancillary relief order. One case may include more than one type of ancillary relief


55

Table 2.7Family mattersDisposal of applications for ancillary relief made in county courts, by whether or not the application was made in respect of a child, 2010 1

Number of disposals

DisposalIn respect of

child(ren)Not in respect of

child(ren) Total

Periodical payments 2,404 773 3,177Lump sum orders 3,203 3,016 6,219Property adjustment orders 4,081 3,665 7,746Pension sharing or attachment orders 1,127 1,226 2,353Secure Provision Order 486 535 1,021Maintenance pending suit 408 265 673Application dismissed 591 661 1,252

Total Disposals 2 12,300 10,141 22,441

Source:HMCTS FamilyMan systemNotes:1 Figures include contested and initially contested cases only2 Figures relate to the number of disposals for each type of ancillary relief order. One case may include more

than one type of ancillary relief


56

Table 2.8Family mattersDomestic violence: Applications made in the county courts, 2006–2010 1, 2

Number of applications

Year

Non-molestation Applications Occupation Applications Total Applications

Ex parte On notice Total Ex parte On notice Total Ex parte On notice Total

2006 13,041 3,844 16,885 6,555 2,829 9,384 19,596 6,673 26,2692007 12,402 3,469 15,871 5,842 2,509 8,351 18,244 5,978 24,2222008 13,888 3,253 17,141 5,392 2,346 7,738 19,280 5,599 24,8792009 15,538 3,365 18,903 4,921 2,203 7,124 20,459 5,568 26,0272010 15,117 2,726 17,843 4,280 1,826 6,106 19,397 4,552 23,949

Source:HMCTS FamilyMan systemNotes:1 Applications for arrest warrants not included2 Does not include applications made in Family Proceedings Courts

Table 2.9Family mattersDomestic violence: Orders made in the county courts, 2006–2010 1

Number of orders

Year

Non-molestation Orders2 Occupation Orders Total Orders

With power of arrest attached

Without power

of arrest attached Total


Without power



Without power


2006 20,860 1,160 22,020 7,283 696 7,979 28,143 1,856 29,999

2007 2 13,352 6,468 19,820 5,647 1,298 6,945 18,999 7,766 26,765

2008 - - 19,367 3,375 1,724 5,099 - - 24,466

2009 - - 20,662 2,616 1,587 4,203 - - 24,865

2010 - - 20,444 2,116 1,527 3,643 - - 24,087

Source:HMCTS FamilyMan systemNotes:1 Does not include orders made in Family Proceedings Courts2 The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 made breach of a non-molestation order a criminal and arrestable offence as of

July 2007, making it no longer necessary for courts to attach a power of arrest to non-molestation orders


57

Tabl

e 2.

10Fa

mily

Cou

rts

Forc

ed M

arria

ge P

rote

ctio

n O

rder

s: Ap

plic

atio

ns m

ade

in th

e H

igh

Cour

t and

cou

nty

cour

ts, 2

008–

2010

Year

App

licat

ions

m

ade

Age

of a

pplic

ant 2

App

lican

t typ

e 3

Ord

ers

mad

e 7

Wit

h po

wer

of a

rres

t 8

17 &

und

erO

ver 1

7U

nkno

wn

Pers

on

to b

e pr

otec

ted 4

Rele

vant

th

ird

part

y 5

Oth

er

third

pa

rty 6

Oth

erYe

sN

o

2008

15

--

--

--

-7

70

2009

96-

--

--

--

101

7922

2010

116

5755

437

2640

1314

995

54

Sour

ce:

HM

CTS

Perf

orm

ance

Dat

abas

eeN

otes

:1

Forc

ed M

arria

ge P

rote

ctio

n O

rder

s wer

e in

trod

uced

by

the

Forc

ed M

arria

ge (C

ivil

Prot

ectio

n) A

ct o

n 25

Nov

embe

r 200

82

Brea

kdow

n by

age

of t

he a

pplic

ant w

as n

ot c

olle

cted

cen

tral

ly u

ntil

2010

3 Br

eakd

own

by ty

pe o

f app

lican

t was

revi

sed

and

expa

nded

as f

rom

201

04

Pers

on b

e to

pro

tect

ed in

clud

es a

pplic

ants

in p

erso

n as

wel

l as t

hose

with

lega

l rep

rese

ntat

ion

5 Re

leva

nt th

ird p

arty

app

lican

ts a

re th

ose

that

can

app

ly o

n be

half

of th

e Pe

rson

to b

e pr

otec

ted

(PTB

P). A

s of N

ovem

ber 2

009

only

loca

l aut

horit

ies

have

bee

n gr

ante

d th

is

stat

us6

Oth

er th

ird p

arty

app

lican

ts in

clud

e th

ose

from

the

polic

e, fa

mily

, Offi

cial

Sol

icito

r/N

ext F

riend

/Gua

rdia

n ad

lite

m a

nd v

olun

tary

sec

tor

7 Th

e nu

mbe

r of o

rder

s m

ade

gene

rally

exc

eed

the

num

ber o

f app

licat

ions

as

FMPO

s ar

e so

met

imes

mad

e du

ring

the

cour

se o

f app

licat

ions

for o

ther

fam

ily o

rder

s, an

d th

ere

is

no d

iffer

entia

tion

betw

een

inte

rim o

rder

s an

d fin

al o

rder

s8

Whe

re a

pow

er o

f arr

est i

s at

tach

ed to

the

orde

r, th

e po

lice

have

the

pow

er to

arr

est a

nyon

e w

ho th

ey h

ave

reas

onab

le s

uspi

cion

to b

elie

ve a

re in

bre

ach

of th

e or

der


58

Table 2.11The Probate ServiceGrants of representation in non-contentious probate proceedings issued, re-sealed and revoked, by type of application and type of registry, 2010

Number of cases

On personal Application

On Application

by Solicitors Total

Grants issued 1

ProbatesPrincipal Registry 9,283 3,046 12,329District Probate Registries 57,174 122,129 179,303

Letters of Administration with will annexedPrincipal Registry 756 255 1,011District Probate Registries 3,894 9,953 13,847

Letters of AdministrationPrincipal Registry 2,626 1,172 3,798District Probate Registries 14,710 21,637 36,347

Total grants issued 88,443 158,192 246,635

Grants Revoked - - 802

Grants re-sealed 48 378 426

Standing Searches 2 - - 13,336

Source:The Probate ServiceNotes:1 Grants are awarded in the following circumstances:

Probate – when the deceased person left a valid will and an executor is actingLetters of administration with will annexed – when a person has left a valid will but no executor is actingLetters of administration – usually when there is no valid will

2 The figures on standing searches are not comparable to figures up to 2006 due to improved recording from 2007


59

Table 2.12The Probate ServiceSummary statistics on grants of representation issued, and contentious probate cases, England and Wales, 2006–2010

Number of cases

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Grants of representation 1

Numbers

Probate 196,748 195,084 200,082 196,245 191,632

Letter of administration with will annexed 14,172 14,398 14,888 15,223 14,858

Letter of Administration 100,207 76,693 52,510 42,696 40,145

Percentages (of all grants)

Probate 63% 68% 75% 77% 78%

Letter of administration with will annexed 5% 5% 6% 6% 6%

Letter of Administration 32% 27% 20% 17% 16%

Total grants of representation 311,127 286,175 267,480 254,164 246,635

Contested probate cases 2 73 185 106 152 120

Source:The Probate ServiceNotes:1 Grants are awarded in the following circumstances:

Probate – when the deceased person left a valid will and an executor is actingLetters of administration with will annexed – when a person has left a valid will but no executor is actingLetters of administration – usually when there is no valid will

2 Where a probate case is contested, the Chancery Division of the High Court deals with the matter


60

Chapter 3


Magistrates’ courts | Chapter 3

62

Chapter 3: Magistrates’ courts

This chapter refers to criminal proceedings in the magistrates’ courts. Information on family proceedings dealt with in the magistrates’ courts can be found in Chapter 2.

Virtually all criminal court cases start in the magistrates’ courts. The less serious offences are handled entirely in magistrates’ courts, with over 90 per cent of all cases being dealt with in this way. The more serious offences are passed on to the Crown Court, either for sentencing after the defendant has been found guilty in the magistrates’ court, or for full trial with a judge and jury. More information on cases passed on to the Crown Court can be found in Chapter 4.

Magistrates deal with three kinds of cases:

Summary offences. These are less serious cases, such as motoring offences •and minor assaults, where the defendant is not usually entitled to trial by jury. They are generally disposed of in the magistrates’ courts.

Indictable offences. These include indictable-only and either-way offences. •

Either-way offences. As the name implies, these can be dealt with either by •the magistrates or before a judge and jury at the Crown Court. Such offences include theft and handling stolen goods. A defendant can insist on their right to trial in the Crown Court. Similarly, magistrates can decide that a case is sufficiently serious that it should be dealt with in the Crown Court - which can impose tougher sentences if the defendant is found guilty.

Indictable-only offences, such as murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery. •These must be heard at a Crown Court. If the case is an indictable-only offence, the involvement of the magistrates’ court is generally brief. A decision will be made on whether to grant bail, and other legal issues such as reporting restrictions will be considered. The case will then be passed to the Crown Court.

If the case is to be dealt with in the magistrates’ court, the defendant(s) are asked to enter a plea. If they plead guilty or are later found to be guilty, the magistrates can impose a sentence, generally of up to 6 months’ imprisonment, or a fine, generally of up to £5,000. If found not guilty (‘acquitted’), defendants are judged innocent in the eyes of the law and will be free to go – provided there are no other cases against them outstanding.

Cases are either heard by two or three lay magistrates or by one district judge. The lay magistrates, or ‘Justices of the Peace’, as they are also known, are local people who volunteer their services. They do not require formal legal


63

qualifications, but will have undertaken a training programme, including court and prison visits, to develop the necessary skills. They are given legal and procedural advice by qualified clerks. On the other hand, district judges are legally qualified, paid, full-time professionals and are usually based in the larger cities. They normally hear the more complex or sensitive cases.

As of April 2010, there were 29,270 magistrates, 143 district judges and 151 deputy district judges operating in the roughly 330 magistrates’ courts throughout England & Wales.

Information on the data sources used for the magistrates’ courts statistics can be found in Annex A. Explanations for some of the main terms used in this chapter can be found in the Glossary. The tables of detailed data can be found immediately following this section of commentary.


An estimated 1.68 million defendants were proceeded against in criminal •cases in the magistrates’ courts in 2010 (excluding breaches), a fall compared to the 1.79 million defendants’ in 2009.

180,000 trials were recorded in the magistrates’ courts in 2010 (unchanged •from 2009). Of those trials, 39 per cent were recorded as cracked (up by one percentage point from 2009), with 18 per cent recorded as ineffective (down by a percentage point from 2009).

The estimated average time taken from offence to completion in 2010 was •138 days for defendants in completed criminal cases in magistrates’ courts (down from 141 days in 2009).

The estimated average time taken from charge to completion in 2010 for •adult charged cases, excluding cases sent or committed to the Crown Court, was 6.7 weeks (down from 6.9 weeks in 2009).

The estimated average number of hearings per case was 2.2 hearings, down •from 2.3 hearings in 2009.

The amount paid in the enforcement of financial penalties was £281 million, •a 12 per cent increase on 2009.

Defendants Proceeded Against

Data since 2008 are derived from the HMCTS Performance Database ‘OPT’ whereas earlier years’ data came from the Court Proceedings Database from the Office of Criminal Justice Reform. These sets of data are not identical, and cannot be directly compared. Therefore no comparison to earlier years is made in this section on caseload and no data for years prior to 2008 are included in Table 3.1.


64

These statistics consider cases completed in magistrates’ courts, and are case-based, so where a case has more than one offence, only the most serious offence is counted.

An estimated 1.68 million defendants were proceeded against for criminal offences (excluding breaches) in magistrates’ courts during 2010, a decrease of six per cent compared with 2009. The decrease in the number of criminal proceedings was primarily the result of fewer proceedings for summary motoring offences (a fall of eight per cent) and summary non-motoring offences (a fall of four per cent).

In 2010 there were 411,000 defendants in adult indictable/triable-either way cases, which represented just under a quarter (24 per cent) of defendants in criminal cases. There were 547,000 adult summary non-motoring cases, comprising of around 33 per cent of defendants, and 591,000 adult summary motoring cases, comprised 35 per cent of criminal cases. In addition, there were 131,000 youth proceedings in the magistrates’ court, representing eight per cent of all defendants in criminal cases, and a 16 per cent fall on 2009.

Statistics on the number of defendants proceeded against in magistrates’ courts are shown in Tables 3.1 and 3.2

Defendants proceeding against in magistrates’ courts (excluding breaches), by offence type, 2010

Adult Summary Motoring

35%

Adult Summary Non-Motoring

33%

Adult Indictable/

Triable either way24%

Youth cases8%


65

Trials

A trial in the magistrates’ court is a hearing at which the prosecution produces evidence to prove the case against the defendant. If a defendant pleads not guilty, or does not give a plea for a summary offence, then there is a trial. Similarly, for either-way offences, a trial may occur in the magistrates’ courts.

Magistrates’ courts record the number and outcome of trials. Trial outcomes are listed as ‘Effective’, ‘Ineffective’ or ‘Cracked’, according to the following definitions:

Effective Trial – A trial that commences on the day it is scheduled, and has an outcome in that a verdict is reached or the case is concluded.

Cracked Trial – On the trial date no further trial time is required and the case is closed. This maybe be because the defendant offers acceptable pleas or the prosecution offers no evidence

Ineffective Trial – On the trial date, the trial does not go ahead due to action or inaction by one or more of the prosecution, the defence or the court and a further listing for trial is required.

If a trial was recorded as either ineffective or cracked, the main reason why the trial did not take place is also recorded. Generally speaking, efficient case progression and good inter-agency communication will lead to higher numbers of effective trials and lower numbers of ineffective and cracked trials. Ineffective and cracked trials waste court time, create additional costs to the justice system and cause inconvenience and delay to witnesses and other court users; therefore effectiveness of trials is important for court and case management.

In 2010, 180,000 trials were recorded in the magistrates’ courts, which remained unchanged from the previous year. Of the total number of trials recorded, 43 per cent were recorded as effective, 39 per cent were recorded as cracked, and 18 per cent were recorded as ineffective.


66

Number of trials in magistrates’ courts by outcome, 2006-2010

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

2009 20102006 2007 2008

Number of trials

Total ineffective trials Total cracked trialsTotal effective

Since 2006, the proportion of cracked trials has increased by two percentage points to 39 per cent. Of these ‘cracked’ trials, 55 per cent of cracked trials were due to a late guilty plea being accepted, and 35 per cent were cracked due to the prosecution ending the case.

Cracked trials: reason for cracked trials in 2010

Guilty plea to alternative new

charge8%

Prosecutionended case

35%

Late guilty plea accepted

55%

Defendant boundover2%

Some 18 per cent of trials were recorded as ineffective in 2010, a percentage which has remained consistent over recent years. The main reasons for ineffective trials included the absence of the defendant (20 per cent of all ineffective trials) and the absence of a prosecution witness (17 per cent of all ineffective trials).


67

Ineffective trials: reasons for ineffective trials in 2010

Defence not ready15%

Prosecution witnessabsent17%

Defence witness

absent3%

Other34%

Prosecution not ready11%

Defendant absent20%

Statistics on trials in magistrates’ courts are shown in Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5.

Timeliness

One way in which the efficiency of the magistrates’ courts can be measured is through the timeliness of cases proceeded against in the magistrates’ courts. Information on the average time taken between stages of proceedings for defendants in completed criminal cases in magistrates’ courts is available from the Time Intervals Survey.

Information on completed adult indictable cases and charged summary cases is collected over one week in the final month of each calendar quarter. Information on completed adult summonsed summary offences is additionally collected in March and September surveys. Information on youth defendants in both indictable and summary completed cases is collected in four weeks of each quarter.

For further information on the Time Intervals Survey can be found on the MoJ website at:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/courts-and-sentencing/magistrates-times.htm

In 2010, the estimated average time taken from offence to completion in the magistrates’ courts was 138 days for all criminal cases. This compares to 148 days in 2006, a decrease of seven per cent in the time taken to complete a case.




68

Average number of days for all criminal cases proceeded against in magistrates’ courts, by stage of proceedings, 2006-2010

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2009 20102006 2007 2008

Average number of days

First listing to completionCharge or laying of information to first listingOffence to charge or laying of information

The estimated average time from offence to completion decreased by three days in 2010 when compared to 141 days in 2009.

The estimated average time taken for the stage from offence to charge or laying of information has remained unchanged since 2009, at 85 days in 2010. However, the estimated average time taken for the stage from charge or laying of information to the first listing in a magistrates’ court decreased by two days, from 31 days in 2009 to 29 days in 2010. The estimated average time from first listing to completion in the magistrates’ courts in 2010 was 24 days and also remained unchanged from 2009.


69

Average time by stage of proceedings, defendants in all criminal cases, 2010

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Indictable/triable eitherway cases

Summary motoringcases

Summary non-motoring cases

All criminal cases


First listing to completionCharge or laying of information to first listingOffence to charge or laying of information

The estimated average time between offence and completion for indictable cases was 110 days in 2010, a one-day decrease from 111 days in 2009. For summary motoring cases the estimated average time taken between offence and completion was 161 days, a one-day decrease from 162 days in 2009. In 2010, there was an estimated average of 134 days between offence and completion for summary non-motoring cases, a four-day decrease from 2009.

The estimated average time taken for the stage from offence to charge or laying of information has remained unchanged since 2009, at 85 days in 2010. However, the estimated average time taken for the stage from charge or laying of information to the first listing in a magistrates’ court decreased by two days, from 31 days in 2009 to 29 days in 2010. The estimated average time from first listing to completion in the magistrates’ courts in 2010 was 24 days and also remained unchanged from 2009.

Sexual Offence cases took the second longest time on average between offence and charge/ laying of information at 298 days. Drunken Driving offences took, on average, the shortest time from offence to charge/laying of information at 15 days.

Compared to summary cases, indictable cases took less time from charge or laying of information to first listing (an estimated 13 days, as opposed to 32 and 39 days for summary non-motoring and motoring cases respectively). However, indictable cases took more time from first listing to completion (34 days as opposed to 19 and 20 days for summary non-motoring and motoring cases respectively).


70

Average time taken by offence group and stage of proceedings for defendants in all criminal cases, 2010

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Fraud and forgery

Sexual Offences

Driving without due care

Other indictable offences

Indictable motoring offences

Failing to stop

Other summary motoring offences

All summary non-motoring cases

Burglary

Drug Offences

Theft and handling stolen goods

Criminal Damage

Robbery

Drunken driving


Offence to charge or laying of informationCharge or laying of information to first listingFirst listing to completion

400350

The timeliness of adult charged cases, excluding cases sent or committed to the Crown Court, was targeted in the Criminal Justice: Simple, Speedy, Summary (CJSSS) initiative, which was rolled out nationwide over 2007 and early 2008.

In 2010 the estimated average time from charge to completion for adult charged cases, excluding cases sent or committed to the Crown Court, was 6.7 weeks, a decrease from 6.9 weeks in 2009.

In 2010 the estimated average number of hearings per case was 2.2 hearings, a decrease from 2.3 hearings in 2009. Since 2006, the average time from charge to completion for adult cases has fallen by 25 per cent and the average number of hearings by 24 per cent.

Statistics on the timeliness of cases in magistrates’ courts are shown in Tables 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9.


71

Enforcement

Fines are the most commonly used sentence in magistrates’ courts. The Courts Act 2003 provided a number of new enforcement sanctions (e.g. clamping, registration) which have since been subject to national rollout by HMCTS, and which have contributed to the increase in the total value of fines paid in recent years.

The amount paid in England and Wales in 2010 was £281 million, a 12 per cent increase from the previous year. The increase in the value of fines observed between 2009 and 2010 in the magistrates’ courts coincided with a number of initiatives, including revised sentencing guidelines issued to magistrates in 2009, improvements to payment facilities and the increased use of enforcement sanctions.

Statistics on enforcement of financial penalties in the magistrates’ courts are shown in Table 3.10.


72

Tabl

e 3.

1M

agis

trat

es’ c

ourt

sN

umbe

r of d

efen

dant

s pr

ocee

ded

agai

nst i

n m

agis

trat

es’c

ourt

s, by

off

ence

type

, Eng

land

and

Wal

es, 2

008–

2010

1, 2

Num

ber o

f def

enda

nts

(in th

ousa

nds)

3

Year

Tota

l cr

imin

al

offe

nces

Crim

inal

cas

esO

ther

cas

esTo

tal

Adul

t su

mm

ary

mot

orin

g pr

ocee

ding

s

Adul

t su

mm

ary

non-

mot

orin

g pr

ocee

ding

s

Adul

t in

dict

able

/ tr

iabl

e e

ither

way

Adul

t br

each

pr

ocee

ding

sYo

uth

proc

eedi

ngs

Tota

l ot

her

case

sRe

pres

enta

tion

orde

rsM

eans

en

quiri

es

Civi

l &

fam

ily

case

sSp

ecia

l Ju

risdi

ctio

n

Tota

l nu

mbe

r of

defe

ndan

ts

2008

2,03

1 6

96

613

4

50

116

155

9

77

589

2

56

130

2

3,

008

2009

1,91

3 6

44

571

4

20

121

156

9

74

584

2

66

122

2

2,

887

2010

1,79

7 5

91

547

4

11

118

131

9

90

540

3

13

135

2

2,

788

Sour

ce:

Com

plet

ed P

roce

edin

gs, H

M C

ourt

s and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

Per

form

ance

Dat

abas

e (O

PT)

Not

es:

1 Th

e fig

ures

pre

sent

ed h

ere

are

deriv

ed fr

om a

diff

eren

t dat

a so

urce

(OPT

) to

bulle

tins

prio

r to

2008

and

are

not

ther

efor

e di

rect

ly c

ompa

rabl

e w

ith d

ata

from

pre

viou

s yea

rs2

In c

ases

whe

re a

def

enda

nt a

ppea

rs a

t cou

rt in

a c

ase

with

mor

e th

an o

ne o

ffen

ce, o

nly

the

offe

nce

whi

ch h

as th

e he

avie

st p

enal

ty im

pose

d is

cou

nted

. Whe

re th

e sa

me

pena

lty is

impo

sed

for t

wo

or m

ore

offe

nces

, the

off

ence

cou

nted

is th

e on

e th

at a

ttra

cts t

he s

tatu

tory

max

imum

pen

alty

. In

inst

ance

s whe

re th

e sa

me

indi

vidu

al a

ppea

rs in

mul

tiple

cas

es, t

hese

are

reco

rded

he

re a

s m

ultip

le d

efen

dant

s3

Num

ber o

f def

enda

nts

are

pres

ente

d in

thou

sand

s (0

00s)

in th

e ta

ble.

For

exa

mpl

e, 2

,788

thou

sand

def

enda

nts

is e

quiv

alen

t to

2.79

mill

ion

defe

ndan

ts


73

Table 3.2Magistrates’ courtsNumber of defendants proceeded against for criminal offences (excluding breaches), by offence type and HMCTS area, England and Wales, 20101,2,3

Number of defendants (thousands) 4

HMCTS Area

Adult Youth Total

Indictable /triable either way offences

Summary non-motoring

offences

Summary motoring offences

All offence

types

Total defendants proceeded

against

Avon and Somerset, Devon & Cornwall, and Gloucestershire

22.2 24.3 30.4 6.5 83.5

Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Thames Valley 24.0 27.7 42.0 6.8 100.4Cambridgeshire, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk 23.8 30.8 43.4 7.8 105.9Cheshire and Merseyside 21.8 30.2 29.0 6.2 87.1Cleveland, Durham and Northumbria 25.4 34.2 24.3 8.5 92.4Cumbria and Lancashire 19.2 21.6 24.9 6.6 72.2Dorset, Hampshire & Isle of Wight, and Wiltshire 20.7 22.6 35.3 7.4 85.9East Midlands 29.7 33.9 42.2 9.3 115.2Greater Manchester 25.0 40.9 31.2 8.4 105.5Humber and South Yorkshire 17.7 22.4 24.3 6.2 70.7Kent, Surrey and Sussex 23.5 32.7 37.4 8.3 101.9London (Central and South) 26.0 35.3 26.9 5.9 94.2London (North and West) 44.5 83.4 68.0 17.3 213.1Mid and West Wales 7.1 7.3 9.6 1.7 25.8North Wales 5.4 5.8 9.3 1.7 22.3North and West Yorkshire 24.2 26.2 35.7 8.4 94.5South East Wales 13.6 18.9 17.0 4.1 53.7Staffordshire and West Mercia 13.0 16.2 23.1 3.9 56.2West Midlands and Warwickshire 23.8 32.1 36.9 6.2 99.0

England and Wales 410.5 546.7 591.1 131.3 1,679.6

Source:Completed Proceedings, HM Courts and Tribunals Service Performance Database (OPT)Notes:1 The figures presented here are derived from a different data source (OPT) to bulletins prior to 2008 and are not therefore directly comparable with

data from previous years2 In cases where a defendant appears at court in a case with more than one offence, only the offence which has the heaviest penalty imposed is

counted. Where the same penalty is imposed for two or more offences, the offence counted is the one that attracts the statutory maximum penalty. In instances where the same individual appears in multiple cases, these are recorded here as multiple defendants

3 The figures presented here are based on the new 19 HMCTS areas, as per the 2010 restructuring of administrative arrangements. The area not shown is London (Civil and Family), which covers non-criminal caseload

4 Number of defendants are presented in thousands (000s) in the table. For example, 1,679.6 thousand defendants is equivalent to 1.68 million defendants


74

Tabl

e 3.

3M

agis

trat

es’ c

ourt

sPr

opor

tion

of li

sted

tria

ls w

hich

‘cra

cked

’, by

reas

on, E

ngla

nd a

nd W

ales

, 200

6–20

10

Year

Tota

l cr

imin

al

tria

ls

Tota

l cr

acke

d tr

ials

Cra

cked

tr

ial r

ate

Reas

ons

for c

rack

ed tr

ial 1

Late

gui

lty p

lea

acce

pted

Gui

lty p

lea

to

alte

rnat

ive

Def

enda

nt b

ound

ove

rPr

osec

utio

n en

d ca

seO

ther

reas

on

Num

ber

Perc

enta

geN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tage

Num

ber

Perc

enta

geN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tage

Num

ber

Perc

enta

geN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tage

2006

180,

950

66,8

5837

%35

,368

53%

4,73

77%

2,80

24%

23,8

8936

%62

0%

2007

189,

830

72,5

6538

%39

,490

54%

5,13

47%

2,22

03%

25,6

6935

%52

0%

2008

183,

511

70,3

6638

%39

,820

57%

5,10

87%

1,62

12%

23,7

7034

%47

0%

2009

179,

858

68,0

8038

%38

,272

56%

5,08

67%

1,48

22%

23,1

9834

%42

0%

2010

179,

794

69,4

4539

%38

,285

55%

5,53

28%

1,59

02%

24,0

1035

%28

0%

Sour

ces:

Crac

ked

and

inef

fect

ive

tria

ls m

onito

ring

form

, Bus

ines

s inf

orm

atio

n D

ivisi

on, H

M C

ourt

s and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

Per

form

ance

Dat

abas

e (O

PT)

Not

es:

1 Th

e m

ain

reas

on fo

r eac

h cr

acke

d tr

ial i

s re

cord

ed a

nd g

roup

ed in

to th

e su

mm

ary

reas

ons

as s

how

n; th

e lis

t of r

easo

ns a

vaila

ble

to re

cord

ers w

as m

odifi

ed in

200

6. S

ee A

nnex

A fo

r det

ails

and

gr

oupi

ngs.

If fu

rthe

r det

ails

are

requ

ired

plea

se u

se th

e ap

prop

riate

con

tact

det

ails

at t

he b

ack

of th

is b

ulle

tin


75

Tabl

e 3.

4M

agis

trat

es’ c

ourt

sPr

opor

tion

of li

sted

tria

ls w

hich

‘ine

ffect

ive’

, by

reas

on, E

ngla

nd a

nd W

ales

, 200

6–20

10

Year

Tota

l cr

imin

al

tria

ls

Tota

l in

effe

ctiv

e tr

ials

Inef

fect

ive

tria

l rat

e

Reas

ons

for c

rack

ed tr

ial 1

Pros

ecut

ion

not

read

yPr

osec

utio

n w

itnes

s ab

sent

Def

ence

not

read

yD

efen

ce w

itnes

s ab

sent

Def

enda

nt a

bsen

t/un

fit to

sta

ndO

ther

reas

on

Num

ber

Perc

enta

geN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tage

Num

ber

Perc

enta

geN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tage

Num

ber

Perc

enta

geN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tage

Num

ber

Perc

enta

ge

2006

180,

950

35,0

4419

%3,

907

11%

8,55

024

%4,

129

12%

1,69

65%

7,22

321

%9,

539

27%

2007

189,

830

35,1

5019

%3,

684

10%

7,77

422

%4,

855

14%

1,50

04%

7,40

721

%9,

930

28%

2008

183,

511

33,4

2318

%3,

611

11%

6,71

220

%5,

137

15%

1,37

14%

7,11

721

%9,

475

28%

2009

179,

858

33,6

0919

%3,

595

11%

6,24

319

%5,

372

16%

1,39

44%

6,90

321

%10

,102

30%

2010

179,

794

32,3

7618

%3,

429

11%

5,62

817

%4,

872

15%

1,12

93%

6,39

220

%10

,926

34%

Sour

ces:

Crac

ked

and

inef

fect

ive

tria

ls m

onito

ring

form

, Bus

ines

s inf

orm

atio

n D

ivisi

on, H

M C

ourt

s and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

Per

form

ance

Dat

abas

e (O

PT)

Not

es:

1 Th

e m

ain

reas

on fo

r eac

h cr

acke

d tr

ial i

s re

cord

ed a

nd g

roup

ed in

to th

e su

mm

ary

reas

ons

as s

how

n; th

e lis

t of r

easo

ns a

vaila

ble

to re

cord

ers w

as m

odifi

ed in

200

6. S

ee A

nnex

A fo

r det

ails

and

gr

oupi

ngs.

If fu

rthe

r det

ails

are

requ

ired

plea

se u

se th

e ap

prop

riate

con

tact

det

ails

at t

he b

ack

of th

is b

ulle

tin


76

Table 3.5Magistrates’ courtsEffectiveness of listed trials, by HMCTS area, England and Wales, 20101

HMCTS Area

Total number of

trials

Effective trials Ineffective trials Cracked trials

Number

Percentage of total

trials Number

Percentage of total

trials Number

Percentage of total

trials

Avon and Somerset, Devon & Cornwall, and Gloucestershire

7,444 3,674 49% 1,340 18% 2,430 33%


11,254 5,472 49% 1,990 18% 3,792 34%


8,597 4,344 51% 1,322 15% 2,931 34%

Cheshire and Merseyside 8,735 3,493 40% 1,200 14% 4,042 46%Cleveland, Durham and Northumbria 9,553 3,843 40% 1,621 17% 4,089 43%Cumbria and Lancashire 9,642 3,830 40% 1,463 15% 4,349 45%Dorset, Hampshire & Isle of Wight, and Wiltshire

10,222 4,550 45% 2,185 21% 3,487 34%

East Midlands 13,171 5,379 41% 2,843 22% 4,949 38%Greater Manchester 10,707 5,048 47% 1,663 16% 3,996 37%Humber and South Yorkshire 6,543 2,653 41% 1,028 16% 2,862 44%Kent, Surrey and Sussex 10,557 4,536 43% 2,278 22% 3,743 35%London (Central and South) 12,310 5,666 46% 2,458 20% 4,186 34%London (North and West) 25,847 11,934 46% 4,518 17% 9,395 36%Mid and West Wales 1,713 874 51% 222 13% 617 36%North and West Yorkshire 10,285 3,450 34% 2,279 22% 4,556 44%North Wales 2,165 1,042 48% 265 12% 858 40%South East Wales 5,299 1,919 36% 783 15% 2,597 49%Staffordshire and West Mercia 5,530 2,441 44% 887 16% 2,202 40%West Midlands and Warwickshire 10,220 3,825 37% 2,031 20% 4,364 43%

England and Wales 179,794 77,973 43% 32,376 18% 69,445 39%

Sources:Cracked and ineffective trial monitoring form, Business Information Division, HM Courts and Tribunals ServiceHM Courts and Tribunals Service Performance Database (OPT)Note:1 The figures presented here are based on the new 19 HMCTS areas, as per the 2010 restructuring of administrative arrangements. The area not

shown is London (Civil and Family), which covers non-criminal caseload. Figures at LCJB level are available on request. If required, please use the appropriate contact details at the back of this bulletin


77

Table 3.6Magistrates’ courtsAverage time taken by stage of proceedings and percentage of proceedings dealt with on first listing for defendants in criminal cases in the magistrates’ courts, by offence type, England and Wales, 2006–2010 1, 2

Year

Average number of days from:Percentage

completed at first listing

(i.e. no adjournments)

Sample size (number of

defendants)

Offence to charge or laying of

information

Margin of error

(+/- days) 3

Charge or laying of information

to first listing

Marginof error

(+/- days) 3First listing to

completion

Margin of error

(+/- days) 3Offence to

completion

Margin of error

(+/- days) 3

Indictable/triable either way cases

2006 61 2 10 0 52 1 123 2 30% 27,730

2007 61 2 10 0 47 1 118 2 32% 28,756

2008 62 2 12 0 37 1 112 2 39% 29,608

2009 62 2 13 0 36 1 111 2 41% 31,624

2010 64 2 13 0 34 1 110 2 41% 31,799

Summary motoring cases

2006 94 1 41 0 25 1 160 1 63% 26,707

2007 96 1 41 0 25 1 162 1 65% 26,396

2008 99 1 43 0 21 1 163 1 65% 22,782

2009 99 1 42 0 22 1 162 2 66% 21,663

2010 102 1 39 0 20 1 161 1 69% 21,160

Summary non-motoring cases

2006 85 1 37 0 24 1 146 2 71% 18,976

2007 83 1 37 1 24 1 144 2 70% 18,231

2008 83 2 36 1 20 1 138 2 73% 16,838

2009 87 2 35 0 17 1 138 2 74% 17,836

2010 83 2 32 0 19 1 134 2 70% 15,885

All criminal cases

2006 85 1 32 0 31 1 148 1 58% 60,200

2007 84 1 32 0 31 1 147 1 58% 59,353

2008 84 1 33 0 26 1 143 1 60% 54,637

2009 85 1 31 0 24 1 141 1 61% 55,611

2010 85 1 29 0 24 1 138 1 61% 53,396

Source:Time Intervals Survey, Ministry of JusticeNotes:1 Results are based on both adult and youth proceedings in one sample week in March, June, September and December for indictable/triable-either-way

offences, and the March and September surveys only for summary offences and all criminal cases. Hence, the sum of the number of defendants by offence type does not equal the total number of defendants

2 More detailed results and notes from the Time Intervals Survey are published in a National Statistics Bulletin, available at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/courts-and-sentencing/magistrates-times.htm

3 The margin of error is a measure of the precision of a result based on a survey. The true value is likely to fall within the range of the sample result plus or minus the margin of error




78

Tabl

e 3.

7M

agis

trat

es’ c

ourt

sAv

erag

e tim

e ta

ken

by st

age

of p

roce

edin

gs a

nd p

erce

ntag

e of

pro

ceed

ings

com

plet

ed a

t firs

t list

ing

for d

efen

dant

s in

crim

inal

cas

es in

the

mag

istra

tes’

cour

ts, b

y of

fenc

e gr

oup,

Eng

land

and

Wal

es, 2

010 1,

2

Off

ence

gro

up

Aver

age

num

ber o

f day

s fro

m:

Perc

enta

ge

com

plet

ed a

t fir

st li

stin

g(i.

e. n

o ad

jour

nmen

ts)

Sam

ple

size

(num

ber o

f de

fend

ants

)

Offe

nce

to

char

ge o

r la

ying

of

info

rmat

ion

Mar

gin

of e

rror

(+/-

day

s) 3

Char

ge o

r la

ying

of

info

rmat

ion

to fi

rst l

istin

g

Mar

gin

of e

rror

(+/-

day

s) 3

Firs

t lis

ting

to

com

plet

ion

Mar

gin

of e

rror

(+/-

day

s) 3

Offe

nce

to

com

plet

ion

Mar

gin

of e

rror

(+/-

day

s) 3

All i

ndic

tabl

e / t

riabl

e ei

ther

way

cas

es

Burg

lary

547

91

375

100

832

%1,

987

Crim

inal

Dam

age

312

130

332

764

45%

2,50

5

Dru

g O

ffenc

es47

214

019

281

355

%4,

727

Frau

d an

d fo

rger

y33

529

192

414

394

3034

%1,

083

Indi

ctab

le m

otor

ing

offe

nces

7116

182

315

120

1747

%49

6

Robb

ery

589

117

253

9512

62%

781

Sexu

al O

ffenc

es29

842

152

4311

356

4439

%81

3

Thef

t and

han

dlin

g st

olen

goo

ds37

212

024

173

347

%10

,036

Viol

ence

aga

inst

the

pers

on42

213

155

211

03

24%

6,82

3

Oth

er in

dict

able

offe

nces

107

1013

135

215

511

43%

2,54

8

All s

umm

ary

mot

orin

g ca

ses

Dru

nken

driv

ing

152

151

285

585

67%

1,98

9

Driv

ing

with

out d

ue c

are

101

543

336

518

08

46%

519

Faili

ng to

stop

7614

274

4316

146

2248

%67

Oth

er su

mm

ary

mot

orin

g of

fenc

es11

11

420

191

171

170

%18

,585

All s

umm

ary

non-

mot

orin

g ca

ses

832

320

191

134

270

%15

,885

All c

rimin

al c

ases

851

290

241

138

161

%53

,396

Sour

ce:

Tim

e In

terv

als S

urve

y, M

inis

try

of Ju

stic

eN

otes

:1

Resu

lts a

re b

ased

on

both

adu

lt an

d yo

uth

proc

eedi

ngs

in o

ne s

ampl

e w

eek

in M

arch

, Jun

e, S

epte

mbe

r and

Dec

embe

r for

indi

ctab

le/t

riabl

e-ei

ther

-way

off

ence

s, an

d th

e M

arch

an

d Se

ptem

ber s

urve

ys o

nly

for s

umm

ary

offe

nces

and

all

crim

inal

cas

es. H

ence

, the

sum

of t

he n

umbe

r of d

efen

dant

s by

off

ence

type

doe

s no

t equ

al th

e to

tal n

umbe

r of

defe

ndan

ts2

Mor

e de

taile

d re

sults

and

not

es fr

om th

e Ti

me

Inte

rval

s Sur

vey

are

publ

ished

in a

Nat

iona

l Sta

tistic

s Bul

letin

, ava

ilabl

e at

: htt

p://

ww

w.ju

stic

e.go

v.uk

/pub

licat

ions

/sta

tistic

s-an

d-da

ta/c

ourt

s-an

d-se

nten

cing

/mag

istra

tes-

times

.htm

3 Th

e m

argi

n of

err

or is

a m

easu

re o

f the

pre

cisi

on o

f a re

sult

base

d on

a s

urve

y. T

he tr

ue v

alue

is li

kely

to fa

ll w

ithin

the

rang

e of

the

sam

ple

resu

lt pl

us o

r min

us th

e m

argi

n of

er

ror




79

Tabl

e 3.

8M

agis

trat

es’ c

ourt

sAv

erag

e tim

e ta

ken

from

off

ence

to c

ompl

etio

n fo

r def

enda

nts

in a

ll cr

imin

al c

ases

in m

agis

trat

es’ c

ourt

s, by

off

ence

type

an

d H

MCT

S ar

ea, E

ngla

nd a

nd W

ales

, 201

01, 2,

3

HM

CTS

Area

Aver

age

num

ber o

f day

s fro

m o

ffen

ce to

com

plet

ion

Sam

ple

size

(num

ber o

f def

enda

nts)

Indi

ctab

le/

tria

ble

eith

er w

ay

case

s

Mar

gin

of er

ror

(+/-

days

) 4

Sum

mar

y m

otor

ing

case

s

Mar

gin

of er

ror

(+/-

days

) 4

Sum

mar

y no

n-m

otor

ing

case

s

Mar

gin

of er

ror

(+/-

days

) 4

All

case

s

Mar

gin

of er

ror

(+/-

days

) 4

Indi

ctab

le/

tria

ble

eith

er w

ay

case

s

Sum

mar

y m

otor

ing

case

s

Sum

mar

y no

n-m

otor

ing

case

sAl

l ca

ses

Avon

and

Som

erse

t, D

evon

& C

ornw

all, a

nd

Glo

uces

ters

hire

118

1115

85

130

613

45

1,82

91,

150

766

2,86

1

Bedf

ords

hire

, Her

tford

shire

and

Tha

mes

Val

ley

130

1016

76

150

615

34

1,78

51,

757

966

3,68

3

Cam

brid

gesh

ire, E

ssex

, Nor

folk

and

Suf

folk

978

135

415

010

128

52,

241

1,50

596

93,

641

Ches

hire

and

Mer

seys

ide

988

187

511

86

141

51,

580

1,21

91,

181

3,20

7

Clev

elan

d, D

urha

m a

nd N

orth

umbr

ia92

713

87

111

811

65

1,84

893

91,

110

2,95

7

Cum

bria

and

Lanc

ashi

re91

715

95

113

712

45

1,60

184

484

62,

493

Dor

set,

Ham

pshi

re &

Isle

of W

ight

, and

Wilt

shire

122

1216

68

143

1115

07

1,45

61,

259

629

2,67

2

East

Mid

land

s12

09

161

512

811

141

52,

132

1,73

985

83,

683

Gre

ater

Man

ches

ter

109

1015

29

130

613

26

1,63

41,

032

950

2,85

3

Hum

ber a

nd S

outh

Yor

kshi

re90

916

612

129

613

26

1,35

277

783

92,

346

Kent

, Sur

rey

and

Suss

ex12

611

175

613

57

151

51,

730

1,50

992

03,

293

Lond

on (C

entr

al a

nd S

outh

)12

510

151

816

217

146

92,

593

855

730

2,90

6

Lond

on (N

orth

and

Wes

t)10

37

173

315

66

146

43,

600

2,14

82,

079

6,07

3

Mid

and

Wes

t Wal

es97

1915

810

155

4414

515

287

217

6541

9

Nor

th W

ales

107

2117

39

100

2312

99

421

227

7752

7


80

HM

CTS

Area

Aver

age

num

ber o

f day

s fro

m o

ffen

ce to

com

plet

ion

Sam

ple

size

(num

ber o

f def

enda

nts)

Indi

ctab

le/

tria

ble

eith

er w

ay

case

s

Mar

gin

of er

ror

(+/-

days

) 4

Sum

mar

y m

otor

ing

case

s

Mar

gin

of er

ror

(+/-

days

) 4

Sum

mar

y no

n-m

otor

ing

case

s

Mar

gin

of er

ror

(+/-

days

) 4

All

case

s

Mar

gin

of er

ror

(+/-

days

) 4

Indi

ctab

le/

tria

ble

eith

er w

ay

case

s

Sum

mar

y m

otor

ing

case

s

Sum

mar

y no

n-m

otor

ing

case

sAl

l ca

ses

Nor

th a

nd W

est Y

orks

hire

110

813

15

108

1412

26

1,91

31,

320

599

2,89

7

Sout

h Ea

st W

ales

116

1418

39

146

1015

17

997

632

815

1,94

4

Staf

ford

shire

and

Wes

t Mer

cia13

114

156

813

511

138

696

882

257

91,

862

Wes

t Mid

land

s and

War

wick

shire

106

1016

86

119

713

35

1,83

21,

209

907

3,07

9

Engl

and

and

Wal

es11

02

161

113

42

138

131

,799

21,1

6015

,885

53,3

96

Sour

ce:

Tim

e In

terv

als S

urve

y, M

inis

try

of Ju

stic

eN

otes

:1

Resu

lts a

re b

ased

on

both

adu

lt an

d yo

uth

proc

eedi

ngs

in o

ne s

ampl

e w

eek

in M

arch

, Jun

e, S

epte

mbe

r and

Dec

embe

r for

indi

ctab

le/t

riabl

e-ei

ther

-way

off

ence

s an

d M

arch

and

Sep

tem

ber

surv

eys o

nly

for s

umm

ary

offe

nces

and

all

crim

inal

cas

es. H

ence

, the

sum

of t

he n

umbe

r of d

efen

dant

s by

off

ence

type

doe

s no

t equ

al th

e to

tal n

umbe

r of d

efen

dant

s2

The

figur

es p

rese

nted

her

e ar

e ba

sed

on th

e ne

w 1

9 H

MCT

S ar

eas,

as p

er th

e 20

10 re

stru

ctur

ing

of a

dmin

istra

tive

arra

ngem

ents

. The

are

a no

t sho

wn

is Lo

ndon

(Civ

il an

d Fa

mily

), w

hich

cov

ers

non-

crim

inal

cas

eloa

d. F

igur

es a

t LCJ

B le

vel a

re a

vaila

ble

on re

ques

t. If

requ

ired,

ple

ase

use

the

appr

opria

te c

onta

ct d

etai

ls a

t the

bac

k of

this

bulle

tin. S

ee A

nnex

A fo

r fur

ther

info

rmat

ion

on th

e ne

w H

MCT

S st

ruct

ure

3 M

ore

deta

iled

resu

lts a

nd n

otes

from

the

Tim

e In

terv

als S

urve

y ar

e pu

blis

hed

in a

Nat

iona

l Sta

tistic

s Bu

lletin

, ava

ilabl

e at

: htt

p://

ww

w.ju

stic

e.go

v.uk

/pub

licat

ions

/sta

tistic

s-an

d-da

ta/

cour

ts-a

nd-s

ente

ncin

g/m

agis

trat

es-t

imes

.htm

4 Th

e m

argi

n of

err

or is

a m

easu

re o

f the

pre

cisi

on o

f a re

sult

base

d on

a s

urve

y. T

he tr

ue v

alue

is li

kely

to fa

ll w

ithin

the

rang

e of

the

sam

ple

resu

lt pl

us o

r min

us th

e m

argi

n of

err

or

Tabl

e 3.

8 co

ntin

ued




81

Table 3.9Magistrates’ courtsAdult charged cases (excluding cases sent or committed to the Crown Court): average time taken from charge to completion and average number of hearings per case, England and Wales, 2006–2010 1, 2

Year

Average number of weeks from charge to

completionAverage number of hearings per case Sample size

Number of weeks

Margin of error

(+/- weeks) 3Number of weeks

Margin of error

(+/- weeks) 3Number of defendants

2006 8.9 0.2 2.92 0.03 32,9522007 8.3 0.1 2.88 0.03 34,5492008 7.0 0.1 2.38 0.02 34,2492009 6.9 0.1 2.27 0.02 35,3232010 6.7 0.1 2.21 0.02 34,923

Source:Time Intervals Survey, Ministry of JusticeNotes:1 Results are based on proceedings in one sample week in March, June, September and December2 More detailed results and notes from the Time Intervals Survey are published in a National Statistics

Bulletin, available at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/courts-and-sentencing/magistrates-times.htm

3 The margin of error is a measure of the precision of a result based on a survey. The true value is likely to fall within the range of the sample result plus or minus the margin of error




82

Table 3.10Magistrates’ courtsEnforcement of financial penalties in magistrates’ courts, England and Wales, 2006–2010 1, 2

YearAmount paid (£ millions) 3

2006 2422007 2552008 2512009 2512010 281

Source:Debt Analysis Return (DAR), Business Information Division, HM Courts and Tribunals ServiceHM Courts and Tribunals Service Performance Database (OPT)Notes:1 Magistrates’ courts submit information on the enforcement of financial penalties using the Debt

Analysis Return. National figures are collated by the Business Information Division in HMCTS2 Information prior to 2004 has not been provided. The collection of enforcement information (DAR) was

revised in April 2003 so that it no longer contained confiscation or civil amounts, and is therefore not available prior to that date in a similar format

3 The amount paid represents the amount of financial penalties collected by the courts in the given year

Chapter 4

The Crown Court

The Crown Court | Chapter 4

84

Chapter 4 - The Crown Court

The Crown Court sits in a number of different locations across England and Wales. It deals with serious criminal cases which include:

Cases sent for trial by magistrates’ courts in respect of ‘indictable only’ •offences (i.e. those which can only be heard by the Crown Court).

‘Either way’ offences committed for trial (i.e. those which can be heard in •either a magistrates’ court or the Crown Court).

Defendants committed from magistrates’ courts for sentence. •

Appeals against decisions of magistrates’ courts. •

The Crown Court has jurisdiction to deal with all trials on indictment and to hear appeals, proceedings on committal of a person for sentence and committal following breach of a community order, and original proceedings in civil matters under certain statutes. It is a unitary court, but is currently based at 77 centres across England and Wales. There are three different types of centre based on the type of work they deal with. They are as follows:

First-tier centres are those visited by High Court Judges for Crown Court and •High Court Civil work. (Crown Court work includes all classes of offence in criminal proceedings.)

Second-tier centres are those visited by High Court Judges for Crown Court •work only. (Crown Court work includes all classes of offence in criminal proceedings.)

Third-tier centres are not normally visited by High Court Judges and handle •Crown Court work only. (Crown Court work includes class 2 and 3 offences in criminal proceedings.)

Circuit Judges and Recorders deal with Crown Court work in all three types of centre.

Information on the data sources used for the Crown Court statistics can be found in Annex A. Explanations for some of the main terms used in this section can be found in the Glossary. The tables of detailed data can be found immediately following this section of commentary.


85


Around 97,700 cases were committed/sent for trial to the Crown Court in •2010. This represents no change compared to 2009. Disposals of cases committed/sent for trial increased by six per cent to 100,100 in 2010.

Some 40,800 cases were committed to the Crown Court for sentence in •2010, an increase of six per cent on the previous year. While appeals against magistrates’ decisions decreased by four per cent to 13,800

Guilty pleas as a proportion of all defendants where a plea was entered fell to •70 per cent in 2010 from 71 per cent in 2009.

In 2010, the cracked and ineffective trial rates both rose by around one •percentage point to 43 per cent and 14 per cent, respectively.

In 2010, the average waiting time for defendants on bail in committed for •trial cases was 15.6 weeks and 9.4 weeks for those held in custody.

In sent for trial cases the average waiting time in 2010 for defendants on bail •was 23.0 weeks and 15.5 weeks for those held in custody in 2010.

The average hearing time for defendants who pleaded not guilty decreased •from 19.8 hours in 2009 to 19.5 hours in 2010 in sent for trial cases, and fell from 7.6 hours to 7.3 hours in committed for trial cases between 2009 and 2010.

Seriousness of offences

For the purpose of trial in the Crown Court, offences are divided into three classes of seriousness according to directions given by the Lord Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor. From the 6 June 2005, the method of classifying offences was amended such that all class 4 offences were reclassified to class 3 offences.

Class 1 – Generally heard by a High Court Judge, these are the most serious offences which include treason and murder.

Class 2 – Offences which include rape that are usually heard by a Circuit Judge under the authority of the Presiding Judge.

Class 3 – Includes all other offences, such as kidnapping, burglary, grievous bodily harm and robbery, which are normally tried by a Circuit Judge or Recorder.

Sent for Trial – ‘Indictable Only’ Offences

Since the 15 January 2001 all ‘indictable only’ cases have been ‘sent for trial’ to the Crown Court after they have had their first appearance in a magistrates’ court. This procedure under Section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 replaced committal proceedings and reduces the number of hearings these cases have at magistrates’ court. While the time that ‘indictable only’ cases spend in the Crown Court will increase, the overall time spent in the Criminal Justice System from arrest to sentence will decrease.


86

Committals for Trial – ‘Either Way’ Offences

‘Either way’ offences may be committed by magistrates’ courts to the Crown Court for trial. The magistrates are required to ask defendants to indicate their plea to the charge. Where a guilty plea is indicated, the summary trial procedure is deemed to have been complied with and the defendant is deemed to have pleaded guilty under it. The defendant can then be sentenced or committed to the Crown Court for sentence.

Where a defendant indicates a not guilty plea or gives no indication of their plea, the court, having considered various factors, including representations by the prosecution and the defence, indicates whether it considers the offence more suitable for a summary trial or an indictment. A court may only proceed to summary trial with the consent of the defendant who may elect to be tried by a jury in the Crown Court.

Committals for Sentence

Provisions in the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 allow magistrates to commit defendants who have been summarily convicted of an ‘either way’ offence to the Crown Court for sentence. The magistrates must be of the opinion that the offence or the offence combined with one or more associated offences is so serious that a greater punishment should be imposed than they have the power to enforce or, in the case of a violent or sexual offence, that a sentence of imprisonment for a longer term than they have power to impose is necessary to protect the public from serious harm. Committals may also arise from breaches of the terms of, for example, Community Orders or suspended sentences of imprisonment where the Crown Court Judge did not reserve any breach to the Crown Court.

Appeals

In its appellate jurisdiction the Crown Court deals mainly with appeals against conviction and/or sentence in respect of criminal offences, including consequential orders, e.g. disqualification from driving, and against the making of certain stand alone orders, e.g. Anti-Social Behaviour Orders. The Crown Court may dismiss or allow the appeal and vary all or any part of the sentence. Appeals are usually heard by a Circuit Judge sitting with no more than four lay magistrates (normally two).

Plea and Case Management

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 introduced new principles of case management for cases sent or committed for trial. On receipt to the Crown Court, such cases have a Plea and Case Management Hearing (PCMH) at which directions may be given for the future conduct of the case including, if appropriate, the fixing of the date for trial or the warned period for its listing.


87

The first hearing in a sent for trial case may be a preliminary hearing which is then followed by a PCMH.

Bench Warrants

A bench warrant is issued for a person deemed to be in contempt of court – usually as a result of that person’s failure to appear at their court appearance. For reporting purposes once a bench warrant is issued the case is considered disposed of. A bench warrant can also be issued in a magistrates’ court for breaches of police bail.

A person is not held under the warrant, but has to be produced before the court within 24 hours of arrest. At this point they may be remanded in custody or re-bailed by the court once the bench warrant is executed and the defendant is brought before the court for the original offence. Often, if a person is arrested on a bench warrant, they are held without bail until they appear in court for whatever incident they originally failed to appear for.

Findings for 2010

The information contained within this chapter was produced using a Management Information System (MIS) data warehouse which provides the Ministry of Justice with access to more complete data than previously possible. MIS receives monthly updates from the Courts Record System (CREST), a computer-based data collection facility used by staff at each court to record case details. CREST is a live-system which allows court staff to enter late information and update previously submitted information. As such, published figures are subject to subsequent revisions in later volumes of this publication.

Receipts, Disposals and Outstanding Workload

A number of changes to court procedures over the last fifteen years have contributed to a shift in workload between magistrates’ court and the Crown Court.

The plea before venue procedure, which was introduced in 1997 for triable •‘either way’ offences, substantially reduced the number of trials received in the Crown Court. It also doubled the number of cases committed for sentence to the Crown Court. These do, however, require much less resource.

The number of trials received in the Crown Court increased upon the •introduction of sent for trial cases in 2001. These are ‘indictable only’ cases which are sent under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to the Crown Court because the offence is so serious that only the Crown Court has jurisdiction to deal with it.


88

Crown Court Committed for Trial Workload, 2001 to 2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Workload (in thousands)

Receipts Disposals Cases outstanding

Crown Court Sent for Trial Workload, 2001 to 2010

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Receipts Disposals Cases outstanding

Workload (in thousands)


89

In 2010, around 97,700 cases were received for trial in the Crown Court. This figure remains unchanged from the previous year and brings to an end the year on year increases observed in the last few years. The key driver behind the break in the upward trend is a slower rate of growth in committed for trial case receipts.

Some 100,100 trial cases were disposed of in 2010, an increase of six per cent compared to 2009. This increase matches closely the growth rates seen in recent years. As a result of more trial cases being disposed of than received, the number of outstanding trial cases at the end of 2010 decreased by five per cent from 2009 to 37,800 cases.

In 2010, cases committed for sentence to the Crown Court increased by six per cent from the previous year to 40,800, while disposals increased by two per cent to 39,700. At the end of 2010 around 5,300 cases were outstanding, an increase of 15 per cent compared to the end of 2009.

The number of appeals received decreased by four per cent from 14,300 in 2009 to 13,800 in 2010. While the number disposed of increased marginally by one per cent from 14,000 in 2009 to 14,100 in 2010. Since more appeals were disposed of than received during 2010, the backlog of appeals outstanding at the end of the year decreased from 3,200 in 2009 to 3,000 in 2010.

Summary statistics on receipts, disposals and outstanding cases in the Crown Court for England and Wales are presented in Table 4.1. Regional and area level figures can be found in Table 4.2.

Judge Caseload

High Court Judges deal with the more complex and difficult cases. In 2010 they sat in two per cent of all trial cases dealt with in the Crown Court. They try the most serious criminal cases in the Crown Court and in 2010 they sat in 26 per cent of all Class 1 cases compared to only two per cent in each of Class 2 and Class 3 cases.

Most Crown Court cases are heard by Circuit Judges and in 2010 they sat in 89 per cent of all trial cases dealt with in the Crown Court. Less complex or serious cases can be heard by Recorders and in 2010 they sat in nine per cent of all trial cases dealt with in the Crown Court.

Summary statistics on judge caseloads in the Crown Court at regional and national levels are presented in Tables 4.3 and 4.4.


90

Defendants

In 2010, the Crown Court dealt with 174,400 defendants in total. This represents an increase of five per cent on 2009 and is a direct result of a rise in the number of cases disposed.

The average number of defendants involved in Crown Court trial cases is unchanged at 1.20 in 2010. The average number of defendants involved in other types of cases has remained constant over the last few years. In 2010, there were, on average 1.01 defendants per case committed for sentence and one defendant per appeal.

Summary statistics on defendants in the Crown Court for England and Wales are presented in Table 4.5.

Pleas and Convictions

Tables 4.6 to 4.9 illustrate how defendants involved in cases committed/sent for trial to the Crown Court were dealt with according to plea. Table 4.10 illustrates how appellants involved in appeals against decisions of magistrates’ courts were dealt with.

Guilty Plea

A guilty plea is recorded when a defendant:

Pleads guilty to all counts; •

Pleads guilty to some counts and not guilty to others and no jury is sworn in •respect of the not guilty counts;

Pleads not guilty to some or all counts but offers a guilty plea to alternatives •which are accepted (providing no jury is sworn in respect of other counts).

A case is treated as a guilty plea only if pleas of guilty are recorded in respect of all defendants.

The proportion of all defendants (including those who did not enter a plea) who entered a not guilty plea in committed/sent for trial cases which were dealt with in 2010 remained unchanged at 29 per cent. The guilty plea rate (the number of guilty pleas as a proportion of all defendants who pled) decreased by one percentage point in 2010 to 70 per cent. Since 2001 it has risen from 56 per cent to the current rate of 70 per cent.

Initiatives in the Crown Court and other agencies, such as offering an early plea discount and providing early charging advice from the Crown Prosecution Service at police stations, have helped to increase the guilty plea rate. Moreover, other initiatives have not only helped to reduce the number of extraneous hearings, but promote early guilty plea decisions.


91

Defendants dealt with by plea, 2001 to 2010

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

20102001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Guilty (to all counts) Not Guilty Bench Warrant Other

Acquitted

Sixty four per cent of defendants who pleaded not guilty in cases dealt with in 2010 were acquitted. These defendants represent 19 per cent of all those who entered a plea and were dealt with in 2010. Of those who were acquitted after a not guilty plea, 62 per cent were discharged by the judge, eight per cent were acquitted on the direction of the judge, 28 per cent were acquitted by the jury and one per cent were acquitted by other means.

Convicted

Thirty six per cent of defendants who pleaded not guilty in cases dealt with in 2010 were convicted. Of those who were convicted after a not guilty plea, 81 per cent were convicted by a jury who reached a unanimous verdict and the remaining 19 per cent by a jury who reached a majority verdict.

Appeals

Forty five per cent of the appellants dealt with in 2010 had their appeals allowed or their sentence varied, 30 per cent were dismissed and 25 per cent were abandoned or otherwise disposed.


92

Listing of Cases

The listing of cases is done, in most instances, months in advance. Good listing practice, inter-agency communication and efficient case progression inevitably lead to a higher number of effective trials. Where a case does not proceed on the day, the case will either ‘crack’ or be ineffective.

Cracked Trial – on the trial date the defendant offers acceptable pleas or the •prosecution offers no evidence. A cracked trial requires no further trial time, but, as a consequence, the time allocated has been wasted and witnesses have been unnecessarily inconvenienced thus reducing confidence in the system.

Ineffective Trial – on the trial date the trial does not go ahead due to action •or inaction by one or more of the prosecution, the defence or the Court and a further listing for trial is required.

Cracked Trials

A defendant entering a late guilty plea has consistently been the main reason for a cracked trial and in 2010 this represented 63 per cent of all cracked trials. Other reasons for cracked trials included the prosecution accepting a plea of guilty to an alternative charge (17 per cent) and the prosecution ending the case (18 per cent).

The cracked trial rate has been increasing since 2001 and has continued to increase in 2010 by one percentage point to 43 per cent.

Ineffective Trials

Up until 2010, the main reason for an ineffective trial has consistently been due to the absence of a defendant or the defendant being unfit to stand. However, although this is a key cause of ineffective trials in 2010 (22 per cent), the main reason for an ineffective trial was court administrative problems which saw a four percentage point increase from 19 per cent in 2009 to 23 per cent in 2010. Other reasons for ineffective trials included the absence of the prosecution witness (20 per cent), the defence not being ready (17 per cent) and the prosecution not being ready (17 per cent).

The ineffective trial rate increased by one percentage point to 14 per cent in 2010.


93

Effective, Ineffective and Cracked Trial Rates, 2001 to 2010

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

20102001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Cracked rateIneffective rate Effective rate

Over the last ten years various new initiatives have been introduced with the aim to reduce the number of ineffective trials.

In 2003, the Ineffective Trial Monitoring Scheme was launched to formalise •procedures on identifying the reasons for ineffective trials and enable focused action to be taken on improving performance.

In 2004, the Effective Trial Management Programme (ETMP) was put in place •to reduce the number of ineffective trials by improving case preparation and progression from the point of charge through to trial or earlier disposal. The ETMP introduced the role of the case progression officer – an individual nominated to the court and each party with the responsibility for progressing the case. Certificates of Readiness were also introduced under ETMP, which are in use in some courts. This requires that each party, acting under the judge’s instruction, confirm in writing that they are ready to proceed with the trial as planned and that the trial will take no more than previously estimated.

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 set out the procedures to be followed in •case management by the courts, prosecution and defence teams.

All these initiatives have helped to bring about a fall in the ineffective trial rate - since 2000 it has fallen by 11 percentage points to the current rate of 14 per cent in 2010.

Summary statistics on cracked and ineffective trials in the Crown Court for England and Wales are presented in Tables 4.11 and 4.12. Regional and area level figures can be found in Table 4.13.


94

Waiting Times

In this publication, the waiting time for a defendant or appellant is defined as the length of time between a committal or the lodging of an appeal and the start of the substantive Crown Court hearing. (For reporting purposes a bench warrant execution is considered as a new trial receipt. Therefore, any subsequent waiting time is taken from the date of execution.)

Waiting times for defendants committed or sent for trial tend to vary according to the plea they enter and whether the defendant is on bail or in custody.

Sent for Trial

In cases sent for trial defendants who pleaded guilty in 2010 waited, on average, 15 weeks, compared to 14 weeks in 2009.

In 2010, the average waiting time for those who pleaded not guilty remained the same at 28 weeks. On average those who pleaded not guilty waited 13 more weeks than those who pleaded guilty. This is not unusual as, where a defendant has pleaded not guilty, extra time is required by both parties to prepare for the case before the trial commences.

The average waiting times in 2010 for defendants remanded in custody was 16 weeks and for defendants remanded on bail was 23 weeks. In 2010, those who were remanded in custody waited, on average, seven weeks less than those remanded on bail.

Sent for Trial Average Waiting Times, 2001 to 2010

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

20102001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Weeks

All defendants Pleaded not guilty Pleaded guilty (to all counts)

In custody On bail


95

Committal for Trial

In cases committed for trial defendants who pleaded guilty in 2010, on average, waited 11 weeks compared to 10 weeks in 2009. The average waiting time for defendants who pleaded not guilty was around 22 weeks. In 2010 those who pleaded not guilty, on average, waited an extra 11 weeks compared to those who pleaded guilty.

The average waiting time in 2010 for defendants remanded in custody remained unchanged at 9 weeks. For those remanded on bail, the average waiting time increased to 16 weeks from 15 weeks in 2009.

The reasons which explain the differences between the various waiting times for cases sent for trial apply here as well.

Cases which are sent for trial involve serious offences that take longer to process and require more court time. Therefore, their average waiting times tend to be higher than average waiting times for cases committed for trial.

Committed for Trial Average Waiting Times, 2001 to 2010

0

5

10

15

20

25

20102001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Weeks

All defendants Pleaded not guilty Pleaded guilty (to all counts)

In custody On bail


96

Sentences and Appeals

In 2010, the average waiting time for defendants in cases committed for sentence remains unchanged at six weeks. Since 1999 this has seen an overall decrease of one week.

In 2010, the average waiting time for defendants appealing the decision of a magistrates’ court remains unchanged at nine weeks. Since 2005 this has seen an overall increase of one week.

Summary statistics on average waiting times in the Crown Court for England and Wales are presented in Tables 4.14 to 4.17.

Hearing Times

Sent for Trial

Where a defendant pleaded not guilty, the average hearing time for cases sent for trial decreased by 18 minutes in 2010, to 19 hours and 30 minutes. However, where a defendant pleaded guilty, the average hearing time for cases sent for trial in 2010 remained the same at one hour and 42 minutes.

Committal for Trial

The average hearing time in 2010 for a defendant who pleaded not guilty decreased by 18 minutes to seven hours and 18 minutes. For those who pleaded guilty, the average hearing time in 2010 remained the same at one hour and six minutes.

Average Hearing Times, by case type and plea type, 2001 to 2010

0

5

10

15

20

25

20102001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Hours

Committal for Trial - Not Guilty Committal for Trial - Guilty

Sent for Trial - Not Guilty Sent for Trial - Guilty


97

Sentences and Appeals

In 2010, the average hearing time was 30 minutes for a case that was committed for sentence and one hour and six minutes for an appeal.

Summary statistics on average hearing times in the Crown Court for England and Wales are presented in Table 4.18.

Juror Statistics

Previously published figures on the number of summons issued double-counted summons which were re-issued as a result of a change in court venue. The figures in this publication have been revised to remove any double-counting.

In 2010, around 373,700 juror summons were issued, which is similar to the number of issues in 2009, (373,900). In the same year, 97,700 were excused. Of these, four per cent were excused as they had already served in the last two years and 96 per cent were excused for other reasons including childcare, work commitments, medical, language difficulties, student, moved from area, travel difficulties and financial hardship.

In 2010, the number of people who failed to reply to their summons together with the number which were returned as undelivered decreased by four per cent to 60,100.

The juror utilisation rate has increased over the last six years to reach its current value of 68 per cent in 2010. This represents an increase of one percentage point on 2009.

Summary statistics on jurors in the Crown Court for England and Wales are presented in Tables 4.19 and 4.20.


98

Tabl

e 4.

1Th

e C

row

n C

ourt

Rece

ipts

, 1 Disp

osal

s 2 and

Out

stan

ding

3 cas

es, b

y ca

se ty

pe, E

ngla

nd a

nd W

ales

200

6–20

10N

umbe

r of c

ases

Year

Com

mitt

ed fo

r tria

lSe

nt fo

r tria

lCo

mm

itted

for s

ente

nce

Appe

als a

gain

st M

ags’

deci

sions

Rece

ipts

Disp

osal

sCa

ses

outs

tand

ing

Rece

ipts

Disp

osal

sCa

ses

outs

tand

ing

Rece

ipts

Disp

osal

sCa

ses

outs

tand

ing

Rece

ipts

Disp

osal

sCa

ses

outs

tand

ing

2006

47,0

8847

,032

18,4

5630

,469

30,4

0715

,397

35,9

6435

,943

5,05

513

,470

13,1

332,

838

2007

50,1

4349

,823

18,8

7032

,738

33,0

6315

,117

40,3

1139

,385

5,49

713

,242

13,2

262,

854

2008

55,3

0253

,654

20,5

5334

,738

34,0

8115

,759

41,6

5641

,337

5,27

014

,019

14,0

082,

873

2009

62,8

3859

,840

23,6

5534

,869

34,4

7116

,243

38,6

6338

,868

4,59

214

,341

13,9

823,

223

2010

63,5

4165

,478

21,9

2334

,147

34,6

6015

,865

40,8

2839

,693

5,27

113

,820

14,0

673,

010

Sour

ce:

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

CRE

ST s

yste

mN

otes

:1

Rece

ipts

incl

ude

com

mitt

als d

irect

from

the

mag

istr

ates

cou

rt, b

ench

war

rant

s ex

ecut

ed (t

rial a

nd s

ente

nce

only

) and

cas

es tr

ansf

erre

d in

, les

s ca

ses t

rans

ferr

ed o

ut2

Dis

posa

ls a

re to

tal c

ases

dea

lt w

ith3

Out

stan

ding

cas

es a

t the

end

of t

he p

erio

d


99

Tabl

e 4.

2Th

e C

row

n C

ourt

Rece

ipts

, 1 Dis

posa

ls 2 a

nd O

utst

andi

ng 3 c

ases

, by

case

type

, HM

CTS

regi

on a

nd a

rea4 , 2

010

Num

ber o

f cas

es

Regi

on

Com

mit

ted

for t

rial

Sent

for t

rial

Com

mit

ted

for s

ente

nce

App

eals

aga

inst

Mag

s’ d

ecis

ions

Rece

ipts

Dis

posa

lsCa

ses

outs

tand

ing

Rece

ipts

Dis

posa

lsCa

ses

outs

tand

ing

Rece

ipts

Dis

posa

lsCa

ses

outs

tand

ing

Rece

ipts

Dis

posa

lsCa

ses

outs

tand

ing

Engl

and

and

Wal

es63

,541

65,4

7821

,923

34,1

4734

,660

15,8

6540

,828

39,6

935,

271

13,8

2014

,067

3,01

0

HM

CTS

Regi

onLo

ndon

12,1

4313

,256

5,30

37,

583

7,92

03,

655

6,17

76,

111

956

2,53

02,

479

670

Mid

land

s9,

964

10,0

333,

275

5,70

65,

769

2,68

97,

492

7,30

484

22,

236

2,40

141

0N

orth

Eas

t10

,562

10,9

473,

029

5,35

55,

399

2,21

26,

846

6,61

195

81,

870

1,88

232

9N

orth

Wes

t10

,831

10,6

403,

537

5,09

85,

119

2,48

96,

872

6,65

279

92,

019

2,00

150

4So

uth

East

11,0

0611

,463

3,68

45,

571

5,68

82,

575

6,80

96,

608

872

2,93

33,

072

525

Sout

h W

est

5,77

65,

894

2,14

32,

836

2,86

51,

452

4,18

34,

033

510

1,62

91,

640

413

Wal

es3,

259

3,24

595

21,

998

1,90

079

32,

449

2,37

433

460

359

215

9

HM

CTS

Area

Avon

& S

omer

set,

Dev

on &

Cor

nwal

l, an

d G

louc

este

rshi

re

3,02

32,

993

1,18

31,

585

1,50

887

02,

218

2,10

729

276

276

021

4

Bedf

ords

hire

, H

ertf

ords

hire

and

Tha

mes

Va

lley

2,87

33,

105

1,05

21,

679

1,70

082

32,

160

2,12

026

799

91,

026

185

Cam

brid

gesh

ire, E

ssex

, N

orfo

lk a

nd S

uffo

lk4,

347

4,39

61,

321

2,04

52,

030

912

2,97

82,

802

381

1,11

21,

187

169

Ches

hire

and

Mer

seys

ide

3,31

63,

423

779

1,51

11,

509

616

1,88

11,

816

232

728

667

193

Clev

elan

d, D

urha

m a

nd

Nor

thum

bria

3,99

84,

106

1,04

41,

838

1,78

776

61,

987

1,95

520

176

377

510

1

Cum

bria

and

Lan

cash

ire3,

139

3,02

91,

110

1,40

71,

392

750

1,84

11,

836

188

553

573

125


100

Dor

set,

Ham

pshi

re &

Isle

of

Wig

ht, a

nd W

iltsh

ire2,

753

2,90

196

01,

251

1,35

758

21,

965

1,92

621

886

788

019

9

East

Mid

land

s4,

479

4,29

71,

521

2,44

22,

327

1,10

43,

315

3,19

836

482

388

215

2G

reat

er M

anch

este

r4,

376

4,18

81,

648

2,18

02,

218

1,12

33,

150

3,00

037

973

876

118

6H

umbe

r and

Sou

th

York

shire

2,

749

2,86

678

21,

611

1,65

360

52,

497

2,38

626

545

846

771

Kent

, Sur

rey

and

Suss

ex3,

786

3,96

21,

311

1,84

71,

958

840

1,67

11,

686

224

822

859

171

Lond

on (C

entr

al a

nd

Sout

h)5,

555

6,06

82,

795

3,73

33,

965

1,92

62,

817

2,79

847

31,

122

1,14

729

1

Lond

on (N

orth

and

Wes

t)6,

588

7,18

82,

508

3,85

03,

955

1,72

93,

360

3,31

348

31,

408

1,33

237

9M

id a

nd W

est W

ales

755

715

230

475

386

197

599

593

8514

213

352

Nor

th a

nd W

est Y

orks

hire

3,81

53,

975

1,20

31,

906

1,95

984

12,

362

2,27

049

264

964

015

7N

orth

Wal

es67

665

719

332

928

312

939

438

343

143

133

44So

uth

East

Wal

es1,

828

1,87

352

91,

194

1,23

146

71,

456

1,39

820

631

832

663

Staf

ford

shire

and

Wes

t M

erci

a2,

204

2,31

665

097

31,

019

451

1,21

51,

215

174

510

541

104

Wes

t Mid

land

s an

d W

arw

icks

hire

3,28

13,

420

1,10

42,

291

2,42

31,

134

2,96

22,

891

304

903

978

154

Sour

ce:

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

CRE

ST s

yste

mN

otes

:1

Rece

ipts

incl

ude

com

mitt

als d

irect

from

mag

istr

ates

’ cou

rts,

benc

h w

arra

nts

exec

uted

(tria

l and

sen

tenc

e on

ly) a

nd c

ases

tran

sfer

red

in, l

ess

case

s tra

nsfe

rred

out

2 D

ispo

sals

are

tota

l cas

es d

ealt

with

3 O

utst

andi

ng c

ases

at t

he e

nd o

f the

per

iod

4 Th

e fig

ures

pre

sent

ed h

ere

are

base

d on

the

new

19

HM

CTS

area

s, as

per

the

2010

rest

ruct

urin

g of

adm

inis

trat

ive

arra

ngem

ents

. The

are

a no

t sho

wn

is L

ondo

n (C

ivil

and

Fam

ily),

whi

ch c

over

s no

n-cr

imin

al c

asel

oad

Tabl

e 4.

2 co

ntin

ued


101

Tabl

e 4.

3Th

e C

row

n C

ourt

Num

ber o

f cas

es 1,

2 dis

pose

d of

and

pro

port

ion

hear

d by

Hig

h Co

urt j

udge

s3 , by

clas

s an

d H

MCT

S re

gion

, 201

0Cl

ass 1

Clas

s 2Cl

ass 3

Regi

onN

umbe

r of

case

s

As %

of

all c

ases

he

ard

Num

ber

hear

d by

a

Hig

h Co

urt

judg

e

% h

eard

by

Hig

h Co

urt

judg

eN

umbe

r of

case

s

As %

of

all c

ases

he

ard

Num

ber

hear

d by

a

Hig

h Co

urt

judg

e

% h

eard

by

Hig

h Co

urt

judg

eN

umbe

r of

case

s

As %

of

all c

ases

he

ard

Num

ber

hear

d by

a

Hig

h Co

urt

judg

e

% h

eard

by

Hig

h Co

urt

judg

e

Tota

l nu

mbe

r of

case

s in

all

clas

ses

Engl

and

& W

ales

1,02

21%

261

26%

3,72

94%

732%

94,1

2395

%1,

485

2%98

,874

HM

CTS

Regi

on

Lond

on26

31%

125%

493

2%4

1%19

,871

96%

209

1%20

,627

Mid

land

s17

01%

5532

%71

45%

172%

14,7

9294

%19

41%

15,6

76

Nor

th E

ast

160

1%40

25%

651

4%14

2%15

,321

95%

213

1%16

,132

Nor

th W

est

157

1%59

38%

609

4%18

3%14

,946

95%

226

2%15

,712

Sout

h Ea

st15

01%

3020

%62

24%

30.

5%16

,214

95%

289

2%16

,986

Sout

h W

est

891%

4348

%40

85%

133%

8,14

694

%25

83%

8,64

3

Wal

es33

1%22

67%

232

5%4

2%4,

833

95%

962%

5,09

8

Sour

ce:

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

CRE

ST s

yste

mN

otes

:1

Incl

udes

cas

es w

here

a b

ench

war

rant

was

issu

ed, n

o pl

ea re

cord

ed, i

ndic

tmen

t to

lie o

n fil

e, fo

und

unfit

to p

lead

, and

oth

er re

sults

2 Ex

clud

es c

ases

whi

ch w

ere

not h

eard

by

a ju

dge

3 In

clud

es a

sm

all n

umbe

r of c

ases

hea

rd b

y ju

dges

in th

e re

leva

nt d

eput

y gr

ade

Perc

enta

ges

may

not

sum

to 1

00%

due

to ro

undi

ng a

nd th

ose

that

wou

ld ro

und

to 0

% h

ave

been

giv

en to

1 d

ecim

al p

lace


102

Tabl

e 4.

4Th

e C

row

n C

ourt

Num

ber o

f cas

es 1,

2 dis

pose

d of

, by

type

of j

udge

3 and

HM

CTS

regi

on, 2

010

Regi

on

Hig

h C

ourt

judg

eC

ircui

t jud

geRe

cord

erTo

tal

num

ber o

f ca

ses

Num

ber

Perc

enta

geN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tage

Num

ber

Perc

enta

ge

Engl

and

& W

ales

1,81

92%

88,4

4689

%8,

609

9%98

,874

HM

CTS

Regi

onLo

ndon

225

1%18

,360

89%

2,04

210

%20

,627

Mid

land

s26

62%

14,0

8190

%1,

329

8%15

,676

Nor

th E

ast

267

2%13

,771

85%

2,09

413

%16

,132

Nor

th W

est

303

2%14

,643

93%

766

5%15

,712

Sout

h Ea

st32

22%

15,15

389

%1,

511

9%16

,986

Sout

h W

est

314

4%7,6

8889

%64

17%

8,64

3W

ales

122

2%4,

750

93%

226

4%5,

098

Sour

ce:

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

CRE

ST s

yste

mN

otes

:1

Incl

udes

cas

es w

here

a b

ench

war

rant

was

issu

ed, n

o pl

ea re

cord

ed, i

ndic

tmen

t to

lie o

n fil

e, fo

und

unfit

to p

lead

, and

oth

er re

sults

2 Ex

clud

es c

ases

whi

ch w

ere

not h

eard

by

a ju

dge

3 In

clud

es a

sm

all n

umbe

r of c

ases

hea

rd b

y ju

dges

in th

e re

leva

nt d

eput

y gr

ade

Perc

enta

ges

may

not

sum

to 1

00%

due

to ro

undi

ng


103

Tabl

e 4.

5Th

e C

row

n C

ourt

Num

ber o

f cas

es1 d

ispo

sed

of, b

y ca

se ty

pe a

nd n

umbe

r of d

efen

dant

s in

volv

ed, E

ngla

nd a

nd W

ales

, 200

6–20

010

Year

Com

mitt

ed /

Sent

for t

rial

Com

mitt

ed fo

r sen

tenc

eAp

peal

s aga

inst

Mag

s’ de

cisi

ons

Disp

osal

s

Num

ber o

f de

fend

ants

in

volv

ed

Case

s w

ith >

1

defe

ndan

t

Aver

age

num

ber o

f de

fend

ants

pe

r cas

eD

ispos

als

Num

ber o

f de

fend

ants

in

volv

ed

Case

s w

ith >

1

defe

ndan

t

Aver

age

num

ber o

f de

fend

ants

pe

r cas

eD

ispos

als

Num

ber o

f de

fend

ants

in

volv

ed

Case

s w

ith >

1

defe

ndan

t

Aver

age

num

ber o

f de

fend

ants

pe

r cas

e

2006

277

,902

94,8

4511

,073

1.22

35,9

4336

,292

316

1.01

13,13

313

,133

01.0

020

0782

,886

100,

885

11,8

141.2

239

,385

39,6

8026

81.0

113

,226

13,2

260

1.00

2008

87,7

3510

5,82

011

,970

1.21

41,3

3741

,692

310

1.01

14,0

0814

,008

01.0

020

0994

,311

113,

032

12,5

221.

2038

,868

39,13

222

41.

0113

,982

13,9

820

1.00

2010

100,

138

120,

381

13,2

321.2

039

,693

39,9

1819

91.0

114

,067

14,0

670

1.00

Sour

ce:

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

CRE

ST s

yste

mN

otes

:1

Incl

udes

cas

es w

here

a b

ench

war

rant

was

issu

ed, n

o pl

ea re

cord

ed, i

ndic

tmen

t to

lie o

n fil

e, fo

und

unfit

to p

lead

, and

oth

er re

sults

2 Th

e Co

mm

itted

/Sen

t for

tria

l dip

osal

figu

re d

oes

not e

xact

ly m

atch

the

corr

espo

ndin

g fig

ure

from

tabl

e 4.

1 as

it w

as e

xtra

cted

from

the

HM

CTS

CRES

T sy

stem

on

a di

ffer

ent d

ate


104

Tabl

e 4.

6Th

e C

row

n C

ourt

Def

enda

nts d

ealt

with

in c

ases

1 com

mitt

ed o

r sen

t for

tria

l, by

ple

a, E

ngla

nd a

nd W

ales

, 200

6–20

10

Year

Tota

l num

ber

of d

efen

dant

s de

alt w

ith

Plea

ent

ered

No

plea

ent

ered

Gui

lty p

leas

as

% ca

ses

with

ple

a

Gui

lty (t

o al

l cou

nts)

Not

Gui

lty 2

Benc

h w

arra

ntO

ther

Num

ber

Perc

enta

geN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tage

Num

ber

Perc

enta

geN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tage

2006

83,7

3052

,817

63%

28,7

0934

%23

90.

3%1,9

652%

65%

2007

90,7

2059

,997

66%

28,2

9931

%30

30.

3%2,1

212%

68%

2008

96,0

2765

,571

68%

27,9

2329

%44

40.

5%2,

089

2%70

%20

0910

4,41

871

,442

68%

29,8

3529

%51

40.

5%2,

627

3%71

%20

1011

2,70

277

,243

69%

32,7

1129

%40

70.

4%2,

341

2%70

%

Sour

ce:

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

CRE

ST s

yste

mN

otes

:1

Incl

udes

cas

es w

here

a b

ench

war

rant

was

issu

ed, n

o pl

ea re

cord

ed, i

ndic

tmen

t to

lie o

n fil

e, fo

und

unfit

to p

lead

, and

oth

er re

sults

2 In

clud

es c

ases

whe

re d

efen

dant

s pl

ead

not g

uilty

to a

ll co

unts

and

als

o ca

ses w

here

def

enda

nts

plea

d no

t gui

lty to

som

e co

unts

Pe

rcen

tage

s m

ay n

ot s

um to

100

% d

ue to

roun

ding

and

thos

e th

at w

ould

roun

d to

0%

hav

e be

en g

iven

to 1

dec

imal

pla

ce


105

Table 4.7The Crown CourtDefendants dealt with in cases1 committed or sent for trial showing result according to plea, England and Wales, 2006–2010

Year

Total number of defendants entering plea

Plea entered

Guilty to all countsTotal

Not Guilty 2

Total Acquitted 3 Convicted 3Percentage

Acquitted

2006 81,526 52,817 28,709 17,031 11,678 59%2007 88,296 59,997 28,299 17,226 11,073 61%2008 93,494 65,571 27,923 16,786 11,137 60%2009 101,277 71,442 29,835 18,583 11,252 62%2010 109,954 77,243 32,711 20,921 11,790 64%

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CREST systemNotes:1 Excludes cases where a bench warrant was issued, no plea recorded, indictment to lie on file, found unfit to plead, and other results2 Includes cases where defendants plead not guilty to all counts and also cases where defendants plead not guilty to some counts 3 Acquitted or convicted on those counts to which defendant pleaded not guilty

Table 4.8The Crown CourtDefendants 1 acquitted after a not guilty plea, by manner of acquittal, England and Wales, 2006–2010

Year

Manner of acquittal

% of acquittals by jury verdict

Discharged by judge

Acquittal directed by

judge Jury verdictOther

acquittal 2 Total

2006 9,919 1,698 5,165 249 17,031 30%2007 10,360 1,660 5,024 182 17,226 29%2008 10,245 1,497 4,844 200 16,786 29%2009 11,146 1,669 5,535 233 18,583 30%2010 13,037 1,749 5,931 204 20,921 28%

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CREST systemNotes:1 Includes cases where defendants plead not guilty to all counts and also cases where defendants plead not guilty to some counts 2 Other acquittals include where no plea is recorded, autrefois acquit and autrefois convict


106

Table 4.9The Crown CourtDefendants convicted 1 after a not guilty plea in cases committed or sent for trial, by number of jurors dissenting to the verdict, England and Wales, 2006–2010

Year

Total convicted

after a not guilty plea

Unanimous verdict

1 dissenting juror

(11–1 majority)

2 dissenting jurors

(10–2 majority)

Percentage of convictions

by unanimous verdict

2006 11,678 9,569 855 1,254 82%2007 11,073 9,049 832 1,192 82%2008 11,137 9,076 817 1,244 81%2009 11,252 9,196 783 1,273 82%2010 11,790 9,606 899 1,285 81%

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CREST systemNote:1 Convicted on at least one count to which the defendant pleaded not guilty

Table 4.10The Crown CourtAppeals (against decisions of magistrates’ courts) dealt with, by appeal type and result, England and Wales, 2006–2010

Year

Total appellants dealt with

Appeals against verdict Appeals against sentence

Total other appeals 3Total Allowed Dismissed

Abandoned 1 or otherwise

disposed 2%

allowed Total Allowed Dismissed

Abandoned 1 or otherwise

disposed 2%

allowed

2006 12,545 5,346 1,958 1,704 1,684 37% 6,533 3,071 1,826 1,636 47% 666

2007 12,446 5,531 2,029 1,749 1,753 37% 6,288 2,830 1,802 1,656 45% 627

2008 13,251 5,915 2,322 1,889 1,704 39% 6,568 2,955 1,802 1,811 45% 768

2009 13,982 6,447 2,678 2,048 1,721 42% 6,838 3,065 1,918 1,855 45% 697

2010 14,067 7,007 3,070 2,166 1,771 44% 6,295 2,960 1,839 1,496 47% 765

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CREST systemNotes:1 Includes both abandoned in court and abandoned before court appearance2 Includes those remitted back to magistrates’ courts3 Includes those for non-Criminal matters including licensing or care proceedings in juvenile cases


107

Tabl

e 4.

11Th

e C

row

n C

ourt

Prop

ortio

n of

list

ed tr

ials

whi

ch ‘c

rack

ed’,

by re

ason

, Eng

land

and

Wal

es, 2

006–

2010

Year

Tota

l ca

ses

liste

d fo

r tr

ial

Tota

l cr

acke

d tr

ials

Crac

ked

tria

l rat

e

Reas

ons f

or c

rack

1

Def

enda

nt e

nter

s lat

e gu

ilty

plea

Def

enda

nt p

lead

s gui

lty

to a

ltern

ativ

e ch

arge

, ac

cept

ed b

y pr

osec

utio

nD

efen

dant

bou

nd o

ver

Pros

ecut

ion

end

case

Oth

er re

ason

Num

ber

Perc

enta

geN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tage

Num

ber

Perc

enta

geN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tage

Num

ber

Perc

enta

geN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tage

2006

36,6

5914

,398

39%

9,17

164

%2,

540

18%

341

2%2,

338

16%

90.

1%

2007

37,2

8515

,507

42%

9,70

763

%2,

754

18%

322

2%2,

713

17%

110.

1%

2008

35,9

8514

,772

41%

9,22

362

%2,

805

19%

272

2%2,

465

17%

70.

0%

2009

39,2

6216

,437

42%

10,4

5164

%2,

831

17%

299

2%2,

851

17%

50.

0%

2010

43,2

6118

,389

43%

11,5

2863

%3,

148

17%

347

2%3,

349

18%

170.

1%

Sour

ce:

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

CRE

ST s

yste

m

Perc

enta

ges

may

not

sum

to 1

00%

due

to ro

undi

ng a

nd th

ose

that

wou

ld ro

und

to 0

% h

ave

been

giv

en to

1 d

ecim

al p

lace


108

Tabl

e 4.

12Th

e C

row

n C

ourt

Prop

ortio

n of

list

ed tr

ials

whi

ch w

ere

‘inef

fect

ive’

, by

reas

on, E

ngla

nd a

nd W

ales

, 200

6–20

10

Year

Tota

l ca

ses

liste

d fo

r tr

ial

Tota

l in

effe

ctiv

e tr

ials

Inef

fect

ive

tria

l rat

e

Reas

ons f

or in

effe

ctiv

e tr

ial

Pros

ecut

ion

not r

eady

Pros

ecut

ion

witn

ess

abse

ntD

efen

ce n

ot re

ady

Def

ence

witn

ess a

bsen

tD

efen

dant

abs

ent /

un

fit to

stan

dCo

urt a

dmin

istra

tive

prob

lem

s

Num

ber

Perc

enta

geN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tage

Num

ber

Perc

enta

geN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tage

Num

ber

Perc

enta

geN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tage

Num

ber

Perc

enta

ge

2006

36,6

594,

571

12%

721

16%

1,02

422

%95

521

%11

73%

1,14

725

%60

713

%

2007

37,2

854,

511

12%

819

18%

915

20%

853

19%

982%

1,21

127

%61

514

%

2008

35,9

854,

169

12%

771

18%

856

21%

782

19%

902%

1,02

925

%64

115

%

2009

39,2

624,

926

13%

851

17%

1,04

021

%86

718

%78

2%1,

168

24%

922

19%

2010

43,2

615,

921

14%

992

17%

1,21

020

%99

417

%79

1%1,

298

22%

1,34

823

%

Sour

ce:

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

CRE

ST s

yste

m

Perc

enta

ges

may

not

sum

to 1

00%

due

to ro

undi

ng a

nd th

ose

that

wou

ld ro

und

to 0

% h

ave

been

giv

en to

1 d

ecim

al p

lace


109

Table 4.13The Crown CourtSummary statistics on effectiveness of cases listed for trial, by HMCTS area and region, 2010

RegionNumber of

listings for trial

Ineffective trials Cracked trials Effective trials

Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

England and Wales 43,261 5,921 14% 18,389 43% 18,951 44%

HMCTS RegionLondon 12,185 1,844 15% 4,151 34% 6,190 51%Midlands 5,293 611 12% 2,288 43% 2,394 45%North East 6,742 917 14% 3,935 58% 1,890 28%North West 5,962 743 12% 3,133 53% 2,086 35%South East 7,736 1,141 15% 2,860 37% 3,735 48%South West 3,485 490 14% 1,303 37% 1,692 49%Wales 1,858 175 9% 719 39% 964 52%

HMCTS AreaAvon & Somerset, Devon & Cornwall, & Gloucestershire

1,632 274 17% 551 34% 807 49%

Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire & Thames Valley

2,521 444 18% 861 34% 1,216 48%

Cambridgeshire, Essex, Norfolk & Suffolk

2,433 242 10% 959 39% 1,232 51%

Cheshire & Merseyside 1,801 159 9% 909 50% 733 41%Cleveland, Durham & Northumbria

2,379 336 14% 1,396 59% 647 27%

Cumbria & Lancashire 1,808 293 16% 978 54% 537 30%Dorset, Hampshire & Isle of Wight, & Wiltshire

1,853 216 12% 752 41% 885 48%

East Midlands 2,136 312 15% 961 45% 863 40%Greater Manchester 2,353 291 12% 1,246 53% 816 35%Humber & South Yorkshire 1,860 236 13% 1,135 61% 489 26%Kent, Surrey & Sussex 2,782 455 16% 1,040 37% 1,287 46%London (Central & South) 5,797 995 17% 1,886 33% 2,916 50%London (North & West) 6,388 849 13% 2,265 35% 3,274 51%Mid & West Wales 384 12 3% 101 26% 271 71%North & West Yorkshire 2,503 345 14% 1,404 56% 754 30%North Wales 274 18 7% 88 32% 168 61%South East Wales 1,200 145 12% 530 44% 525 44%Staffordshire & West Mercia 1,022 97 9% 431 42% 494 48%West Midlands & Warwickshire

2,135 202 9% 896 42% 1,037 49%

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CREST system

Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding


110

Tabl

e 4.

14Th

e C

row

n C

ourt

Aver

age

wai

ting

times

for d

efen

dant

s dea

lt w

ith 1 h

avin

g be

en c

omm

itted

for t

rial,

by p

lea

and

rem

and

type

, En

glan

d an

d W

ales

, 200

6–20

10

Year

All

defe

ndan

ts d

ealt

wit

h

By P

lea

By R

eman

d st

atus

3

Def

enda

nts

plea

ding

no

t gui

lty 2

Def

enda

nts

plea

ding

gui

lty

(to

all c

ount

s)D

efen

dant

s re

man

ded

in c

usto

dyD

efen

dant

s re

man

ded

on b

ail

Num

ber

deal

t w

ith

Aver

age

wai

ting

time

(wee

ks)

% d

ealt

with

in

16 w

eeks

Num

ber

deal

t w

ith

Aver

age

wai

ting

time

(wee

ks)

% d

ealt

with

in

16 w

eeks

Num

ber

deal

t w

ith

Aver

age

wai

ting

time

(wee

ks)

% d

ealt

with

in

16 w

eeks

Num

ber

deal

t w

ith

Aver

age

wai

ting

time

(wee

ks)

% d

ealt

with

in

16 w

eeks

Num

ber

deal

t w

ith

Aver

age

wai

ting

time

(wee

ks)

% d

ealt

with

in

16 w

eeks

2006

449

,732

14.5

68%

17,3

7220

.646

%32

,360

11.3

79%

12,5

789.

885

%37

,154

16.1

62%

2007

453

,661

14.5

69%

17,3

3121

.347

%36

,330

11.2

80%

13,1

359.

587

%40

,526

16.1

63%

2008

457

,653

13.5

73%

17,0

3721

.348

%40

,616

10.2

84%

14,8

398.

989

%42

,814

15.0

68%

2009

64,4

1113

.574

%18

,606

21.5

49%

45,8

0510

.284

%15

,976

8.8

90%

48,4

3515

.168

%

2010

71,5

1214

.271

%20

,661

22.3

46%

50,8

5110

.981

%16

,153

9.4

89%

55,3

5915

.666

%

Sour

ce:

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

CRE

ST s

yste

mN

otes

:1

Excl

udes

cas

es w

here

a b

ench

war

rant

was

issu

ed, n

o pl

ea re

cord

ed, i

ndic

tmen

t to

lie o

n fil

e, fo

und

unfit

to p

lead

, and

oth

er re

sults

2 In

clud

es c

ases

whe

re d

efen

dant

s pl

ead

not g

uilty

to a

ll co

unts

and

als

o ca

ses w

here

def

enda

nts

plea

d no

t gui

lty to

som

e co

unts

3 Th

is is

repr

esen

ted

by a

def

enda

nt’s

rem

and

stat

us a

t the

sta

rt o

f the

firs

t mai

n he

arin

g4

The

sum

of t

he ‘A

ll de

fend

ants

dea

lt w

ith’ fi

gure

s fro

m T

able

s 4.

14 a

nd 4

.15 d

oes

not e

xact

ly m

atch

the

corr

espo

ndin

g fig

ure

(num

ber o

f def

enda

nts

ente

ring

a pl

ea) f

rom

Tab

le 4

.6 a

s it

was

ex

trac

ted

from

the

HM

CTS

syst

em o

n a

diff

eren

t dat

e


111

Tabl

e 4.

15Th

e C

row

n C

ourt

Aver

age

wai

ting

times

for d

efen

dant

s dea

lt w

ith 1 h

avin

g be

en s

ent f

or tr

ial,

by p

lea

and

rem

and

type

, En

glan

d an

d W

ales

, 200

6–20

10

Year

All

defe

ndan

ts d

ealt

wit

h

By P

lea

By R

eman

d st

atus

3

Def

enda

nts

plea

ding

no

t gui

lty 2

Def

enda

nts

plea

ding

gui

lty

(to

all c

ount

s)D

efen

dant

s re

man

ded

in c

usto

dyD

efen

dant

s re

man

ded

on b

ail

Num

ber

deal

t w

ith

Aver

age

wai

ting

time

(wee

ks)

% in

26

wee

ks

Num

ber

deal

t w

ith

Aver

age

wai

ting

time

(wee

ks)

% d

ealt

with

in

26 w

eeks

Num

ber

deal

t w

ith

Aver

age

wai

ting

time

(wee

ks)

% d

ealt

with

in

26 w

eeks

Num

ber

deal

t w

ith

Aver

age

wai

ting

time

(wee

ks)

% d

ealt

with

in

26 w

eeks

Num

ber

deal

t w

ith

Aver

age

wai

ting

time

(wee

ks)

% d

ealt

with

in

26 w

eeks

2006

430

,584

19.5

76%

11,9

3626

.361

%18

,648

15.1

86%

14,6

8116

.783

%15

,903

22.0

70%

2007

431

,959

20.5

73%

11,3

4928

.653

%20

,610

16.0

84%

15,6

5717

.382

%16

,302

23.5

65%

2008

434

,631

19.2

76%

10,9

8028

.654

%23

,651

14.9

86%

17,5

7115

.386

%17

,060

23.2

66%

2009

35,9

4818

.678

%10

,902

28.7

55%

25,0

4614

.288

%19

,003

15.1

87%

16,9

4522

.568

%

2010

36,8

6618

.678

%11

,229

28.3

56%

25,6

3714

.488

%19

,245

15.2

87%

17,6

2122

.368

%

Sour

ce:

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

CRE

ST s

yste

mN

otes

:1

Excl

udes

cas

es w

here

a b

ench

war

rant

was

issu

ed, n

o pl

ea re

cord

ed, i

ndic

tmen

t to

lie o

n fil

e, fo

und

unfit

to p

lead

, and

oth

er re

sults

2 In

clud

es c

ases

whe

re d

efen

dant

s pl

ead

not g

uilty

to a

ll co

unts

and

als

o ca

ses w

here

def

enda

nts

plea

d no

t gui

lty to

som

e co

unts

3 Th

is is

repr

esen

ted

by a

def

enda

nt’s

rem

and

stat

us a

t the

sta

rt o

f the

firs

t mai

n he

arin

g4

The

sum

of t

he ‘A

ll de

fend

ants

dea

lt w

ith’ fi

gure

s fro

m T

able

s 4.

14 a

nd 4

.15 d

oes

not e

xact

ly m

atch

the

corr

espo

ndin

g fig

ure

(num

ber o

f def

enda

nts

ente

ring

a pl

ea) f

rom

Tab

le 4

.6 a

s it

was

ex

trac

ted

from

the

HM

CTS

syst

em o

n a

diff

eren

t dat

e


112

Table 4.16The Crown CourtAverage waiting times for defendants dealt with 1 having been committed for sentence, England and Wales, 2006–2010

Year

Total number of defendants

dealt withAverage waiting

time (weeks)% dealt with in

10 weeks

2006 25,903 6.0 89%2007 24,209 5.8 91%2008 24,611 5.7 92%2009 23,082 5.7 92%2010 21,972 5.9 93%

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CREST systemNote:1 Excludes committals after breach, ‘bring backs’ and deferred sentences

Table 4.17The Crown CourtAverage waiting times for appellants dealt with 1 having appealed the decision of a magistrates’ court, England and Wales, 2006–2010

Year

Total number of appellants

dealt withAverage waiting

time (weeks)% dealt with in

14 weeks

2006 11,171 7.9 87%2007 10,933 8.6 86%2008 12,107 8.7 86%2009 11,865 8.9 86%2010 11,937 8.6 86%

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CREST systemNote:1 Excludes cases abandoned before appearance in court


113

Tabl

e 4.

18Th

e C

row

n C

ourt

Aver

age

hear

ing

times

in ca

ses1 d

ealt

with

, by

case

type

and

ple

a, E

ngla

nd a

nd W

ales

, 200

6–20

10

Year

Com

mitt

ed fo

r tria

lSe

nt fo

r tria

lCo

mm

itted

for

sent

ence

Appe

als a

gain

st M

ags’

de

cisio

n

Not

gui

lty p

lea

Gui

lty p

lea

Not

gui

lty p

lea

Gui

lty p

lea

Num

ber

of ca

ses

deal

t with

Aver

age

hear

ing

time

(hou

rs)

Num

ber

of ca

ses

deal

t with

Aver

age

hear

ing

time

(hou

rs)

Num

ber

of ca

ses

deal

t with

Aver

age

hear

ing

time

(hou

rs)

Num

ber

of ca

ses

deal

t with

Aver

age

hear

ing

time

(hou

rs)

Num

ber

of ca

ses

deal

t with

Aver

age

hear

ing

time

(hou

rs)

Num

ber

of ca

ses

deal

t with

Aver

age

hear

ing

time

(hou

rs)

2006

14,5

878.

428

,291

1.3

8,75

018

.417

,694

1.9

33,3

600.

611

,594

1.1

2007

14,4

898.

031

,142

1.2

8,82

317

.620

,263

1.6

36,0

850.

511

,439

1.1

2008

14,5

338.

135

,840

1.2

8,87

620

.322

,118

1.7

39,3

810.

512

,235

1.0

2009

16,0

507.

640

,904

1.1

9,21

119

.822

,710

1.7

38,0

670.

512

,468

1.0

2010

17,6

547.

345

,370

1.1

9,76

419

.522

,442

1.7

38,6

590.

512

,756

1.1

Sour

ce:

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

s Ser

vice

CRE

ST s

yste

mN

ote:

1 Ex

clud

es c

ases

whe

re a

ben

ch w

arra

nt w

as is

sued

, no

plea

reco

rded

, ind

ictm

ent t

o lie

on

file,

foun

d un

fit to

ple

ad, a

nd o

ther

resu

lts


114

Table 4.19The Crown CourtJury Central Summoning Bureau figures1, 2006–2010

Number of cases

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total number of summons issued2,3 (r) 366,846 388,362 395,503 373,871 373,650

Total number of jurors supplied to the court 181,966 182,661 183,506 176,351 181,281

Deferred to serve at a later date 61,254 66,174 66,806 61,892 62,051

Number refused deferral 172 122 103 87 78

Excused by right having served in past 2 years 4,277 4,518 4,244 3,470 3,881

Excused for other reasons 4 95,559 103,064 104,290 96,563 93,782

All excused 99,836 107,582 108,534 100,033 97,663

Number refused excusal 2,053 1,641 1,515 1,342 1,485

Disqualified – residency, mental disorders, criminality 85,061 94,171 96,325 92,704 96,482

Disqualified – on selection 53,031 58,900 59,017 56,967 56,871

Disqualified – failed Police National Computer (PNC) check 185 207 225 220 215

Failed to reply to summons 39,223 40,635 45,192 49,086 47,221

Summons undelivered 18,394 18,325 17,603 13,646 12,916

Postponed by Jury Central Summoning Bureau 6,379 7,274 9,621 7,439 6,569

Source:Jury Central Summoning BureauNotes:1 Numbers do not add up to the overall total within a given year as the data reflect rolling 12 month periods with ‘carry-

over’ rules applied to certain rows in the table. For example, the number of disqualifications reported for a given year may include disqualifications for summons that were issued in previous years

2 Previously published figures for 2006 to 2009 double counted summons that were re-issued due to a change in court venue. In this publication, these figures have been revised to remove any double counting

3 This figure represents the number of summons that were issued in a year and not the number of people that actually served on a jury in that year. For example, a person summoned for jury service in 2010, may not actually serve until 2011

4 Including childcare, work commitments, medical, language difficulties, student, moved from area, travel difficulties and financial hardship


115

Table 4.20The Crown CourtJuror sitting days and juror utilisation, England and Wales, 2006–2010

YearJuror sitting

days

Juror non-sitting

days

Juror non-attendance

days

Juror utilisation

rate1

2006 830,567 279,601 295,260 59%

2007 811,937 305,986 252,611 59%

2008 846,875 298,485 254,008 61%

2009 902,950 263,987 198,152 66%

2010 942,415 258,537 192,818 68%

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service Performance Database (OPT)Note:1 Juror utilisation rate is the number of sitting days divided by the sum of sitting, non-sitting and non-

attendance days


116

Table 4.21The Crown CourtSummary statistics on hearing times, waiting time, plea rates and juror utilisation, by HMCTS area1 and region, 2010

Region

Average Hearing Time (hours)

Guilty plea Rate

Average Waiting Time (weeks)Juror

utiliationrate

Not Guilty plea Trials

Guilty plea Trials

Committal for Sentence Appeal

Not Guilty plea Trials

Guilty plea Trials

Committal for Sentence Appeal

England and Wales 11.6 1.3 0.5 1.1 71% 24.5 12.4 5.9 8.6 68%

HMCTS RegionLondon 12.9 1.6 0.7 1.4 56% 28.6 15.8 5.9 9.4 76%Midlands 11.2 1.1 0.4 0.8 76% 23.7 11.9 5.4 8.3 65%North East 7.9 1.1 0.4 0.8 79% 19.7 10.5 5.5 8.0 67%North West 10.5 1.3 0.5 1.0 78% 22.0 11.8 6.5 7.1 68%South East 13.4 1.3 0.6 1.3 70% 24.6 12.6 6.3 8.3 64%South West 12.4 1.3 0.5 1.0 71% 24.5 13.1 5.4 10.3 57%Wales 8.8 1.0 0.5 0.9 74% 19.2 9.7 6.1 10.0 62%

HMCTS AreaAvon & Somerset, Devon & Cornwall, and Gloucestershire

12.2 1.4 0.5 1.1 74% 24.8 12.8 5.2 10.7 56%


14.5 1.4 0.6 1.7 66% 26.6 14.4 6.0 7.9 62%

Cambridgeshire, Essex, Norfolk & Suffolk

11.7 1.3 0.6 0.9 73% 22.5 11.4 5.8 6.7 62%

Cheshire and Merseyside 10.2 1.2 0.4 0.8 78% 18.8 10.0 6.0 6.9 72%Cleveland, Durham and Northumbria

6.4 1.1 0.4 0.8 79% 16.6 9.6 4.6 6.8 66%

Cumbria and Lancashire 8.9 1.3 0.5 1.1 78% 22.0 12.7 5.1 10.1 63%Dorset, Hampshire & Isle of Wight, and Wiltshire

12.6 1.3 0.5 1.0 68% 24.1 13.4 5.6 10.1 59%

East Midlands 11.1 1.0 0.4 0.7 79% 22.4 11.5 5.6 7.1 63%Greater Manchester 11.8 1.3 0.5 1.0 79% 24.6 12.5 7.8 5.1 67%Humber and South Yorkshire

8.4 1.1 0.3 0.7 82% 21.3 10.3 4.1 7.2 62%

Kent, Surrey and Sussex 14.1 1.3 0.6 1.2 70% 24.7 12.5 7.3 11.0 67%London (Central and South)

14.7 1.7 0.7 1.4 56% 32.1 16.8 5.9 8.6 74%

London (North and West)

11.2 1.6 0.7 1.4 57% 25.3 14.8 5.9 10.0 78%

Mid and West Wales 9.1 1.1 0.5 1.2 70% 17.7 8.6 6.7 12.6 66%North and West Yorkshire

9.0 1.0 0.5 0.8 78% 21.3 11.5 7.8 10.1 71%

North Wales 9.5 0.9 0.4 0.7 77% 17.9 8.4 10.2 11.5 61%South East Wales 8.5 1.1 0.5 1.0 75% 20.3 10.5 4.4 8.3 61%Staffordshire and West Mercia

10.1 1.0 0.4 1.0 77% 23.8 11.2 6.0 9.8 60%

West Midlands and Warwickshire

11.7 1.2 0.5 0.9 73% 24.8 12.9 4.9 8.7 70%

Sources:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CREST systemHM Courts and Tribunals Service Performance Database (OPT) (Juror utilisation rate)Note:1 The figures presented here are based on the new 19 HMCTS areas, as per the 2010 restructuring of administrative arrangements. The area not shown is Lon-

don (Civil and Family), which covers non-criminal caseload

Chapter 5

High Court – Chancery Division

High Court – Chancery Division | Chapter 5

118

Chapter 5: High Court – Chancery Division

In England and Wales civil justice is administered mainly by the High Court and county courts (Chapter 1), the former handling the more substantial and complex cases. The High Court is divided into three main Divisions: the Chancery Division, the Queen’s Bench Division and the Family Division.

The core business of the Chancery Division is the resolution of disputes involving property in all its forms including commercial, business and intellectual property, competition disputes, taxation, and its traditional work relating to companies, partnerships, mortgages, insolvency, land and trusts.

The head of the Chancery Division is the Chancellor of the High Court, supported by 18 High Court judges. Chancery business is dealt with in the Royal Courts of Justice in London and in eight High Court District Registries across the country.

Statistics on the other cases dealt with at the High Court can be found in various locations throughout this report. Statistics regarding the work of the High Court’s Queen’s Bench Division can be found in Chapter 6. Information on cases concerning family matters dealt with by the High Court’s Family Division are included within the Family Matters statistics section (Chapter 2). The three Divisions of the High Court also act as appellate courts for a range of civil and family matters, and statistics on these cases can be found in Chapter 7.

Information on the data sources used for the High Court statistics can be found in Annex A. Explanations for some of the main terms used in this section can be found in the Glossary. The tables of detailed data can be found immediately following this section of commentary.


There were 36,600 proceedings started in the Chancery Division in 2010, a •decrease of 20 per cent from 45,700 in 2009.

In the Chancery Divison applications filed at the Bankruptcy court decreased •by 39 per cent, from 18,200 in 2009 to 11,100 in 2010.

There were 4,800 claims and other originating proceedings issued in London •Chancery Division in 2010, the trend remaining flat from 2009 after close to a 30 per cent increase between 2008 and 2009.


119

Chancery

Most actions begin with the issue of a claim or originating proceedings by the claimant against the defendant. Some are dealt with without a trial. Before an action comes to trial there may be a number of interlocutory hearings which are heard by judges and masters (in London) and district judges (outside London). Trials come before High Court judges or deputy High Court judges.

Information on the work by masters in London is given in Table 5.2, whilst Tables 5.3 and 5.4 give breakdowns on the proceedings issued, and the cases disposed of, in London during 2010.

In 2010, there were 4,800 claims issued and other originating proceedings in London. A number of new categories for the nature of proceedings were introduced by the Chancery Division in 2010. Some proceedings, which in previous years would have been classified in one of the ‘Other …’ categories in Table 5.3, have therefore been classified in one of the new categories. As a result of this not all categories are directly comparable with previous years. Around 680 proceedings related to contract, of which two thirds were break in contract and 560 proceedings related to intellectual property, of which over a half were copyright and design right.

Bankruptcy Court

Bankruptcy is where an individual is unable to pay his or her debts. Proceedings are started with a petition for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy actions at the High Court are heard by registrars. Bankruptcy cases can also be heard in the county courts and heard by district judges (see Chapter 1 for statistics on county court civil cases).

There were 8,400 bankruptcy petitions issued in the High Court in London during 2010, a decrease of 22 per cent on the 10,800 in the previous year, mainly due to the petitions by creditors decreasing. Other originating applications decreased by 64 per cent, to 2,700 in 2010, continuing a decreasing trend in the last five years. See Table 5.5 for more information.

Companies Court

The Companies Court in London deals primarily with the compulsory liquidation of companies and other matters under the Insolvency Act 1986 and Companies Acts. Unlike an individual, a company cannot be made bankrupt, but may, because of insolvency or if there is some other reason it should cease to exist, be wound up instead. In addition to winding-up proceedings, the Court exercises other powers in relation to registered companies. For example, a company can only reduce its capital with the approval of the Court.


120

The Court also deals with claims to prevent individuals from being a director, liquidator, administrator, receiver or manager of a company or to take part in the running of a company under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. Most proceedings in the Companies Court are dealt with by registrars but certain applications are heard by judges. Eight High Court District Registries also have concurrent jurisdiction with the Companies Court in London.

Under applications filed in the companies Court in London originating and non-originating petitions, applications and summonses decreased by 27 per cent and 15 per cent, respectively, since 2009.

Patents Court

The Patents Court deals with matters concerning patents, registered designs and appeals against the decision of the Comptroller General of Patents.

During 2010:

Thirty eight actions, which included trials and appeals, were listed. Of these, •23 were withdrawn due to settlement or by order resulting from an interlocutory hearing. The hearings took 32 court days, not taking into account judgment writing time.

Ninety four interlocutories, which included case management conferences, •applications for directions, summary judgment, applications to strike out etc, were listed and 43 withdrawn by consent. In the majority of cases of those withdrawn the terms of the order sought were agreed by the parties. The average time for this type of hearing was one hour and the total time taken throughout the year was about 10 court days.

Three appeals against the decision of the Comptroller General of Patents •were listed and the total time taken in court was two court days.


121

Table 5.1Chancery DivisionSummary of proceedings started, 2006–20010

Number of cases

Nature of originating proceedings 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Claims issued and other originating proceedingsLondon 4,528 3,534 3,779 4,887 4,810Outside London 1 2,025 3,762 5,558 2,242 2,861

Bankruptcy Court proceedingsBankruptcy petitions 13,559 12,479 12,144 10,770 8,389Other Originating applications2 6,550 8,261 5,551 r 7,402 r 2,674

Companies Court proceedings 3

London4 9,696 9,099 11,586 12,371 r 10,003Outside London 5 8,303 8,403 8,852 8,000 r 7,889 p

Patents Court appeals received 2 3 5 6 5

Total 44,663 45,541 47,475 r 45,678 r 36,631

Source:Chancery Division (multiple data sources)Notes:1 Contains estimated originating summonses as follows: 185 in 2006; 349 in 2007; 568 in 2008; 187 in 2009; and 329 in 20102 The ‘Other Originating applications’ totals for 2008 and 2009 are revised figures. The 2008 figure was 10,022 and the 2009 was

15,341. They were previously the sum of Originating and Non-Originating Other Applications3 Excluding transfers from the Chancery Division4 The 2009 figure has been revised and was previously 12,8855 Includes winding-up petitions. The 2009 figure has been revised and was previously 3,370. The 2010 figure is provisional and contains

estimated figures for the following returns: 169 in August and 129 in November for Birmingham; 836 for all of 2010 for Bristol; 22 in August for Liverpool; and 27 in October and 20 in December for Newcastle


122

Table 5.2Chancery DivisionOrders made by masters, enforcement issues and appointments before masters, London, 2006-2010

Number of cases

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Orders made by masters1

Drawn up by drafting section 6,927 7,040 6,429 7,514 9,099Not drawn up 2,556 2,555 2,119 1,164 1,305Drawn up by solicitors 15 2 0 0 0

Transfers Out 261 355 276 243 335

Enforcement IssuesPossession 15 23 36 26 30Writs of fi-fa 35 49 74 61 110

Appointments before mastersOn notice 5,945 6,303 4,557 3,176 4,109Without Notice 1,102 1,034 960 1,028 820

Source:Chancery DivisionNote:1 Includes final and interlocutory orders


123

Table 5.3Chancery DivisionClaims and originating proceedings issued in London by nature of proceedings, 2006–2010

Number of cases

Nature of proceedings 2006 2007 2008 2009 20101

Land and property 2

Contracts of sale and purchase 10 10 127 366 107Landlord and Tenant 3 5 28 40 73Mortgages and charges 0 0 7 113 33Squatters and trespassers 1 2 10 29 1Restrictive covenants 1 1 3 11 25Orders of Possession of Land 3 - - - - 39Other Proceedings 3 1,114 924 413 276 269

Business and industryPartnership 28 82 54 106 45Business fraud claims 0 3 1 33 0Competition 3 - - - - 11Contracts of sale & purchase of shares & business 14 1 42 270 44Other Disputes 3 301 246 348 214 63

Intellectual propertyConfidential information 3 21 23 95 45Passing off and trade marks 50 118 142 171 146Patents and registered designs 4 57 111 111 130 65Copyright and design right 4 120 172 286 374 306

Contract 3

Specific Performance - - - - 49Breach of contract - - - - 456Debt - - - - 129Miscellaneous - - - - 49

Professional negligenceClaims against solicitors 30 31 80 210 144Claims against accountants 2 0 0 28 0Claims against surveyors and estate agents 0 0 1 17 8Claims against members of other professions 10 31 66 84 78


124

Table 5.3 continued

Number of cases


Trusts, wills and probateContentious probate actionsDisputes relating to Trust propertyVariation of TrustsInheritance (provision for dependants)Guardianship of minors' estateCharities

3Breach of fiduciary duty 3Pension schemes

3Removal of personal representatives Other applications concerning wills and trusts3

Other3Miscellaneous Payments out of court

Application for an Order for Sale (to enforce a charging 3order)

3VAT Claims (GLO-Revenue and Customs) Other debts, damages and accountsRevenue appealsSolicitors

3Contempt of court Application for payments of monies lodged in court

3under various enactments 3Arbitration

Originating process not otherwise classified3

Total

7310

21001---

214

--

-1,102

010

--

-1,362

4,528

18530

4380---

237

--

-343

129--

-936

3,534

106131980

53---

365

--

-876

7147

--

-452

3,779

1524434

1101

10---

216

--

-157276

0--

-1,320

4,887

1201114381

24

478

33107

136172

12571001

1,292

9263

4,810

Source:Chancery chambers, bespoke contribution for this publicationNote:1 With effect from 2010 the Chancery Division improved the way all claims were recorded. As a result, figures for 2010 are

not directly comparable with those for previous years2 Includes residential and commercial property3 With effect from 2010, a number of new categories for the nature of proceedings were introduced by the Chancery

Division. Some proceedings, which in previous years would have been classified in one of the ‘Other …’ categories in the table, have therefore been classified in one of the new categories in 2010. As a result, in the ‘Other ...’ rows, the figures for 2010 are not directly comparable with those for previous years

4 These matters are dealt with in the Patents Court


125

Table 5.4Chancery DivisionCases listed in London disposed of, by listing type, 2010

Number of cases

Total cases

Number disposed of

1 TotalAfter trial or hearing Otherwise

Trial list 896 223 547 770

General list

Interim hearing list

Total

2

1,000

2,212

4,108

878

1,860

2,961

77

336

960

955

2,196

3,921

Source:High Court combined workload returnNotes:1 Settled out of court2 These figures comprise the number of cases whic

come from previous hearings before a Master or a the Interim Applications Judge. The figures relate hearings before a Master. They now also include t

h are set down in the InJudge) and applicatio

to all applications befohe Interim Applications List

ns which are issued directly to re a Judge, and do

terim Hearings List (which

not include

Table 5.5Chancery DivisionOriginating proceedings in Bankruptcy court, 2006–2010

Number of cases

Applications filed 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1Bankruptcy petitions

By creditors

By debtors and legal representatives of deceased

Other Originating applications

Total

2

9,846 8,730

3,713 3,749

6,550 8,261

20,109 20,740

8,610

3,534

5,551 r

17,695 r

7,210

3,560

7,402 r

18,172 r

5,597

2,792

2,674

11,063

Source:Chancery Division business returnsNote:1 Figures are for the Royal Courts of Justice only. See Chapter 1 for details of bankruptcy petitions issued

in the county courts2 The ‘Other Originating applications’ totals for 2008 and 2009 are revised figures. The 2008 figure

was 10,022 and the 2009 figure was 15,341. They were previously the sum of Originating and Non-Originating Other Applications


126

Table 5.6Chancery DivisionSummary of Companies Court proceedings, 1 London, 2006–2010

Number of cases

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Applications filedWinding-up petitions 5,152 5,313 6,484 6,604 5,783

Other petitions, applications and summonsesOriginating2 4,544 3,786 5,102 5,767 r 4,220Non-originating2 4,708 4,732 5,033 6,912 r 5,886Claims transferred in2 469 510 782 206 r 138

Orders madeOn winding-up petitions:

Winding-up orders made 2,371 2,136 2,982 3,425 2,914Dismissed/Withdrawn 2,555 2,270 3,165 3,279 2,831

On other petitions, applications and summonses 11,552 10,154 13,526 15,390 14,337

Transfers to county courts 1,858 1,437 2,681 2,794 2,056

Applications before registrarListed 13,455 12,724 16,466 18,165 16,947Unlisted 558 513 555 607 411

Source:Chancery Division business returnsNote:1 Figures are for the Royal Courts of Justice only2 For 2009 these are revised figures. Previously they were: Originating, 7,402; Non-originating 7,939; and Claims transferred in n/a

Chapter 6

High Court – Queen’s Bench Division

High Court –Queen’s Bench Division | Chapter 6

128

Chapter 6: High Court – Queen’s Bench Division

The Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court deals mainly with civil actions in contract and tort (civil wrongs) and also hears more specialist matters, such as applications for judicial review.

It contains within it the Commercial Court and the Admiralty Court, which deals with shipping matters such as damage to cargo. It also administers the Technology and Construction Court which hears cases involving prolonged examination of technical issues, such as construction disputes.

In London, the work of the Queen’s Bench Division is administered in the Central Office at the Royal Courts of Justice. Work outside London is dealt with at the High Court’s District Registries.

It is headed by the President of the Queen’s Bench Division, supported by 72 High Court judges. Judges of the Queen’s Bench Division also hear the most important criminal cases in the Crown Court and they also sit on the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

Statistics on the other cases dealt with at the High Court can be found in various locations throughout this report. Statistics regarding the work of the High Court’s Chancery Division can be found in Chapter 5. Information on cases concerning family matters dealt with by the High Court’s Family Division are included within the Family Matters statistics section (Chapter 2). The three Divisions of the High Court also act as appellate courts for a range of civil and family matters, and statistics on these cases can be found in Chapter 7, including statistics for the Adminstrative Court, which forms part of the Queen’s Bench Division.

Information on the data sources used for the High Court statistics can be found in Annex A. Explanations for some of the main terms used in this section can be found in the Glossary. The tables of detailed data can be found immediately following this section of commentary.


129


There were 16,600 proceedings started in the Queen’s Bench Division in •2010, an 11 per cent decrease on 2009.

Of the 4,900 claims issued in the Queen’s Bench Division at the Royal Courts •of Justice in London, a quarter were debt claims and just over one in five were personal injury actions.

There were 45,200 enforcement proceedings issued in the Queen’s Bench •Division in 2010, a decrease of 10 per cent on the previous year.

In the Royal Courts of Justice in London, there were 190 claims issued in the •Admiralty Court, 1,100 claims issued in the Commercial Court and 570 claimed received in the Technology and Construction Court.

Queen’s Bench

There were 16,600 proceedings started in the Queen’s Bench Division in 2010. Of these, 4,900 were issued at the Royal Courts of Justice in London and 11,800 at the various High Court District Registries around the country. Proceedings started decreased by 11 per cent on 2009 following a flat trend between 2006 and 2009.

The 4,900 proceedings issued at the Royal Courts of Justice included 1,200 related to debt (a quarter), 1,000 (21 per cent) were personal injury actions, 670 (14 per cent) related to breach of contract and 750 (15 per cent) concerning clinical negligence.

Actions are normally started by way of a claim or an originating summons. A claim is the most common method and is used, for example, when a claim is based on an allegation of fraud or a civil wrong; it informs defendants what is claimed against them. An originating summons is used in certain cases, such as applications under specific Acts; it outlines the nature of the case.

If a defendant fails to respond to a claim, a claimant may be entitled to a judgment by default; there were 1,200 such judgments by default in 2010.

If a defendant responds any of the following may result: (a) the claimant may discontinue the action, (b) the parties may reach agreement between themselves, (c) the court may decide that the defendant has no real defence to the action and gives summary judgment, or (d) a trial takes place, in some circumstances with a jury.

Judgments of the Queen’s Bench Division may be enforced in many ways. By far the most common is the issuing of a writ of fieri facias (fi-fa). This directs the sheriff (the equivalent of the bailiff in the county courts) to seize, and if necessary, to sell the debtor’s goods to raise money to pay off the debt. There were 44,900 writs of fi-fa issued in 2010, a fall compared to 49,600 in 2009.


130

Admiralty Court

The Admiralty Court is part of the Queen’s Bench Division and deals with shipping matters. This deals with a range of naval matters such as ship collisions and damage to cargo. There is one Admiralty Judge who hears all admiralty cases and a number of interlocutory matters. The Admiralty Marshal is responsible for the detention and sale of ships which are the subject of proceedings in the Admiralty Court. Some 190 claims were issued in the Admiralty Court at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, a decrease of 16 per cent on the previous year.

Commercial Court

The Commercial Court also deals with some shipping matters, but is largely concerned with disputes around contracts, insurance, carriage of cargo and the construction of ships. Other matters dealt with at the Commercial Court include banking, international credit, contracts relating to aircraft, the purchase and sale of commodities and the practice of arbitration and questions arising from arbitrations. There are fifteen Commercial Judges who hear all commercial cases and interlocutory applications. Some 1,100 claims were issued in 2010, a decrease of 16 per cent on the previous year. Around 46 per cent of these related to breach of contract/agreement/debt.

Technology and Construction Court

Matters dealt with at the Technology and Construction Court include building and engineering disputes, computer litigation, professional negligence, sale of goods, valuation disputes, and questions arising from arbitrations and adjudications in building and engineering disputes. The court also deals with any cases from the Chancery Division or elsewhere within the Queen’s Bench Division which involve issues or questions which are technically complex, or for which trial by judges at the court is for any reason desirable.

In 2010 there were five full-time senior circuit judges and two High Court judges based in London assigned to the Technology and Construction Court. Outside London, nominated circuit judges deal with the courts business, including full-time designated judges at Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool District Registries. A total of 570 claims were received in the Technology and Construction Court, an increase of 17 per cent on the previous year.


131

Table 6.1Queen’s Bench DivisionSummary statistics on proceedings started, 2006–2010

Number of cases


Claims and originating summonsesIssued by Royal Courts of Justice 4,246 4,794 5,173 5,694 4,864Issued by district registries 1, 2 14,118 13,711 13,080 12,889 11,755

Total 18,364 18,505 18,253 18,583 16,619

Source:Queen’s Bench Division (compilation from multiple sources)Notes:1 Figures for district registries contain annual estimates of the numbers of originating summonses as follows: 1,115

in 2004; 1,195 in 2005; 1,288 in 2006, 1,619 in 2007; 1,337 in 2008; 992 in 2009; and 1,315 in 20102 Figures for district registries also include those cases which were issued for enforcement only


132

Table 6.2Queen’s Bench Division 1Proceedings started, by nature and value of claim, 2010

Number of claims

Nature of claim

Value of claim

Total£25,000 –

£50,000Over

£50,000 Unspecified

Debt (goods sold & delivered, work carried out etc)

218 469 530 1,217

Breach of contract 307 164 200 671

Clinical Negligence 236 221 295 752

Personal Injury Actions 200 414 427 1,041

Other Negligence (inc. professional negligence)

12 53 182 247

Defamation (libel, slander) 27 47 84 158

Tort (e.g. nuisance, trespass, assault, wrongful arrest, etc.)

4 9 6 19

Recovery of land / property 0 0 6 6

Miscellaneous 78 270 405 753

Total 1,082 1,647 2,135 4,864

Source:High Court combined workload returnNote:1 Figures given are for the Royal Courts of Justice only


133

Table 6.3Queen’s Bench Division 1Judgment without trial, 2 by type and value of judgment, 2010

Number of judgments

Type of judgment

Value of judgment

Total£25,000 –

£50,000Over


By default 126 374 690 1,190

Order by summary judgment (including order 14)

48 67 154 269

Total 174 441 844 1,459

Source:High Court combined workload returnNotes:1 Figures given are for the Royal Courts of Justice only2 Judgments without trial can be by default (i.e. with no response from the defendant) or by summary

judgment (under Order 14 of the Rules of the High Court)


134

Table 6.4Queen’s Bench Division 1Originating receipts and trials concluded in the year, 2006–2010

Year Number of originating receipts

Number of trials concluded 2

Average length of trials concluded (days) 2

2006 4,246 199 3.62007 4,794 221 4.12008 5,173 251 4.32009 5,694 196 3.82010 4,864 182 4.0

Source:HMCTS Business Management SystemNotes:1 Figures given are for the Royal Courts of Justice only2 Does not include figures for May 2010 and October 2010 since they were not supplied by the RCJ. The

revised total for 2010 may be published at a later date

Table 6.5Queen’s Bench Division 1Interlocutory applications 2 for masters in London, 2006–2010

Year Number of applications

2006 7,6262007 8,7942008 11,6602009 9,2972010 3 8,113

Source:HMCTS Business Management SystemNotes:1 Figures given are for the Royal Courts of Justice only2 Excludes applications for directions or for summary judgment under Order 14 of the rules of the High

Court3 Includes: QB application listed for hearing; General on notice applications issued at the counter;

General consent applications issued at the counter; General on notice applications issued by post; and General consent applications issued by post


135

Table 6.6Queen’s Bench Division 1Enforcement proceedings issued, 2010

Number of cases

Nature of Enforcement LondonOutside London Total

Writs of fi-fa 1,242 43,655 44,897Writs of possession 12 0 12Writs of Delivery 0 0 0Charging orders 154 0 154Final Third Party Debt Orders 68 0 68Application for orders to attend court for questioning

87 8 95

Total 1,563 43,663 45,226

Source:HMCTS Business Management SystemNotes:1 Figures given are for the Royal Courts of Justice only


136

Table 6.7Admiralty Court 1Summary statistics on admiralty proceedings, 2006–2010

Number of cases


Claims issued 105 89 114 230 194

Total Summonses issued2 142 129 107 112 120Judges 43 33 37 n/a n/aRegistrars 99 96 70 n/a n/a

Applications heard 142 60 107 53 75

References to registrar 1 1 1 1 2

Warrants of arrest executed 3 50 34 43 42 34

Sales by the Court 4 2 1 25 5

Source:Admiralty CourtNotes:1 Figures are for the Royal Courts of Justice only2 The figures for 2009 and 2010 are for the total of summonses issued. The breakdowns are not

available3 Vessels or property arrested

Table 6.8Admiralty Court 1Admiralty claims issued by nature of action, 2006–2010

Number of cases

Nature of action 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Collision 25 13 18 21 17Damage to cargo 21 19 24 13 14Personal injury (including fatal) 4 2 1 34 63Mortgage 1 1 5 25 5Limitation of liability - 1 1 0 1Others 54 53 65 137 94

Total 105 89 114 230 194

Source:Admiralty CourtNote:1 Figures are for the Royal Courts of Justice only


137

Table 6.9Admiralty Court 1Admiralty actions for trial in the High Court set down, tried or otherwise disposed of, 2006–2010

Number of claims

Actions for trial 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total set down 10 12 13 17 11

Tried during year 4 3 4 2 2Otherwise disposed of 11 10 9 15 4

Total tried 15 13 13 17 6

Source:Admiralty CourtNote:1 Figures are for the Royal Courts of Justice only

Table 6.10Commercial Court 1Claims issued showing nature and value of claim, 2010

Number of claims

Type of claim

Value of claim

TotalUp to

£50,000Over


Banking 0 0 4 4

Breach of Contract/Agreement / Debt

42 206 240 488

Insurance/Re-insurance 1 0 12 13

Miscellaneous 7 124 161 292

Arbitration 0 261 2 263

Total 50 591 419 1,060

Source:Commercial CourtNote:1 Figures are for the Royal Courts of Justice only


138

Table 6.11Technology and Construction Court 1Summary caseload statistics, 2006–2010

Number of actions

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Received

Claims and originating summonses issued in Registry

337 376 341 495 465

By transfer 53 33 25 33 28

Total 390 409 366 528 493

Disposed of

Tried 32 33 39 49 51

Struck out, settled or discontinued 153 160 140 173 192

Transferred 2 7 6 5 8

Default judgments entered 5 16 13 17 19

Total 192 216 198 244 270

Number of Interlocutory Applications heard 2 454 397 374 483 566

Source:Technology and Construction CourtNotes:1 Figures are for the Royal Courts of Justice only2 Many other Interlocutory Applications were disposed of before hearing, or on the basis of written submissions

Chapter 7

Appellate Courts

Appellate Courts | Chapter 7

140

Chapter 7 – Appellate Courts

There are various appeal courts in England and Wales which are administered by HM Courts and Tribunals Service.

The J • udicial Committee of the Privy Council - the final Court of Appeal for 23 Commonwealth territories and four independent Republics within the Commonwealth.

The • Supreme Court - the Supreme Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom, replacing the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in October 2009.

The • Court of Appeal - divided into the Criminal Division, which hears appeals from the Crown Court and Courts Martial, and the Civil Division, which hears appeals mainly against decisions in the High Court and county courts.

The • High Court - has three Divisions, Chancery Division, Queen’s Bench Division and Family Division, each of which handles different types of civil work. It exercises an appellate jurisdiction through its three Divisions in such matters as bankruptcy, judicial review, ‘case stated’ (ruling whether a court or tribunal was wrong in law or in excess of its jurisdiction) and appeals from magistrates’ courts in domestic matters including orders involving children. Statistics on other cases dealt with at the High Court can be found in Chapter 2 (Family Division), Chapter 5 (Chancery Division) and Chapter 6 (Queen’s Bench Division).

Information on the data sources used for the appellate courts’ statistics can be found in Annex A. Explanations for some of the main terms used in this section can be found in the Glossary. The tables of detailed data can be found immediately following this section of commentary.


Some 80 appeals were entered, and 33 disposed of by the Judicial •Committee of the Privy Council during the year. The vast majority of these appeals were entered overseas.

Some 250 applications were presented to the UK Supreme Court during •2010, while 220 were disposed of.

A total of 7,250 applications for leave to appeal were received in 2010, this •number remaining steady over the last few years. Of these 1,500 were against conviction in The Crown Court and 5,500 against the sentence imposed.


141

Of the appeals heard by the Full Court in the Court of Appeal Criminal •Division, around 190 appeals against conviction were allowed and 1,460 appeals against sentence were allowed. This continued the fluctuating trend seen in recent years.

In the Court of Appeal Civil Division, there were a total of 3,350 applications •filed/set down and 3,180 disposed of. This was increases of 12 per cent and three per cent, respectively, on 2009, continuing the fluctuating trend seen in recent years.

There were 10,500 applications for permission to apply for judicial review •received in the Administrative Court of the High Court in 2010, the majority of which, as in previous years, concerned asylum and immigration matters. This was a 16 per cent increase on 2009, with the proportion refused increasing by 44 per cent.

Appellate Courts: Appeals entered, 2001-2010

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

High Court1

Court of Appeal - Criminal DivisionCourt of Appeal - Civil DivisionHouse of Lords, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council & from Oct 2009 UK Supreme Court

1 The total for 2010 High Court does not include the figure for Family Division as it is currently not available


142

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has both a Commonwealth and a domestic jurisdiction. In its Commonwealth jurisdiction, which is by far the largest part of its work, it hears appeals from those independent Commonwealth countries which have retained the appeal to Her Majesty in Council or, in the case of Republics, to the Judicial Committee itself. It also hears appeals from the United Kingdom overseas territories. By agreement with the Sultan of Brunei, the Committee can hear appeals from the Brunei Court of Appeal, but in civil matters only, and gives its advice to the Sultan.

The Judicial Committee’s domestic jurisdiction has three main elements:

i. appeals from the Channel Islands and Isle of Man, which are analogous to Commonwealth appeals and are dealt with under the same rules;

ii. appeals under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 from decisions of the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons;

iii. appeals against pastoral schemes under the Pastoral Measure 1983.

Commonwealth appeals and references are normally heard by a board of five members of the Judicial Committee; other appeals are normally dealt with by a Board of three.

In 2010, 80 appeals were entered, including 26 from Trinidad and Tobago, 15 from Jamaica and 10 each from Mauritius and The Bahamas, while 33 cases were dealt with (some of which may have originated from a previous year).

The Supreme Court

The UK Supreme Court (UKSC) is the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom. It was created in October 2009 and replaced the House of Lords as the United Kingdom’s highest court. It hears appeals on arguable points of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court at that time, bearing in mind that the causes will have already been the subject of judicial decision. The UKSC can hear appeals on both civil and criminal matters.

Applications for permission to appeal

Applications for permission to appeal are referred to an Appeal Panel of three Justices. Permission to appeal is usually determined on the basis of written submissions by the parties, but the Panel may decide to hold a hearing so that counsel can make oral submissions, before the Appeal Panel makes a final decision on the application.


143

In the UKSC in 2010, around 250 petitions for permission to appeal were presented, 220 were disposed of, of which 130 were refused outright. See Table 7.3 for more information.

Appeals

Appeals are heard by a Court, usually consisting of five justices, and hearings typically last about two days.

In the UKSC in 2010, 68 appeals were presented and 59 appeals disposed of. There were 57 appeals determined, of which 11 were asylum/immigration appeals. See Tables 7.4 and 7.5 for more information.

The Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal is divided into two Divisions, criminal and civil. Its courtrooms and offices are situated in the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The judges of the Court of Appeal are the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and 37 Lords Justices of Appeal.

The Criminal Division, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice and the Vice-President of the Criminal Division, hears appeals in criminal matters from the Crown Court. Courts are constituted from the Lord Chief Justice, Vice-President and Lords Justices, assisted by High Court judges as required.

The Civil Division, presided over by the Master of the Rolls, hears appeals mainly against decisions of the High Court and county courts, and also of tribunals and certain other courts, such as the Patents Court. In the Civil Division, courts of two or three judges are normally constituted from the Master of the Rolls and the Lords Justices.

Criminal Division

During 2010, a total of 7,250 applications for leave to appeal were received, this number remaining steady over the last few years. Of these 1,500 were against conviction in The Crown Court and 5,500 against the sentence imposed. Of the 4,800 applications for leave to appeal which were considered by a single judge, 240 of those seeking to appeal against conviction were granted as were 1,180 against sentence. This continues the fluctuating trend seen in the last five years. Around 1,000 applications were renewed, a decline of a fifth over the last five years. See Table 7.6.

Of the appeals heard by the Full Court during 2010, around 190 appeals against conviction were allowed and 1,460 appeals against sentence were allowed. This continued the fluctuating trend seen in recent years. See Table 7.7 for more information.


144

Civil Division

In 2010, 1,180 appeals were filed in the Court of Appeal on civil matters, a similar number to the previous year. A quarter were from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, just over 200 appeals from the county courts on non-family matters, and 160 appeals from the Administrative Court of the High Court Queen’s Bench Division.

In the Court of Appeal Civil Division a total of 3,350 applications were filed/set down and 3,180 disposed of in 2010. These were increases of 12 per cent and three per cent, respectively, on 2009, continuing the fluctuating trend seen in recent years. See Table 7.10 for more information.

The High Court

The High Court exercises appellate jurisdiction in the following respects.

(a) The Chancery Division hears appeals in revenue matters from the Commissioners of Taxes. All bankruptcy appeals from the county courts and from the High Court Registrars under the Insolvency Act 1986 are heard by a single judge of the Chancery Division.

(b) The Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division and the Administrative Court has jurisdiction in respect of several matters, including Judicial Review, appeals by way of case stated (when a person is dissatisfied on a point of law with a decision of the Crown Court, a magistrates’ court or a tribunal), and various statutory provisions including those on planning matters under the Town and Country Planning Acts. In 2005 the court was also given power to order the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal to reconsider an appeal against a decision refusing asylum or other decision of the UK Border Agency.

(c) The Divisional Court of the Family Division hears appeals from magistrates’ courts in a wide variety of domestic matters including orders involving children. The appeals are entered at the Principal Registry in London.

In the Administrative Court, which is part of the Queen’s Bench Division, supervisory jurisdiction, by way of judicial review, is exercised over the Crown Court (for matters not relating to trial on indictment), inferior courts and tribunals, and the actions and decisions of public bodies, Government ministers or other persons charged with the performance of public acts and duties. Judicial review is concerned with the legality and propriety of the decision-making process, as distinct from the merits of the decision in question. It is only appropriate when all other avenues of appeal have been exhausted. The Court can make what are known as ‘prerogative orders’, which may, for example, command a person or body to perform a duty, prohibit an inferior court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction, or quash the decision under challenge.


145

Chancery Division

In 2010, a total of 100 appeals were set down for hearing in the Chancery Division, of which 44 related to bankruptcy matters. Seventy appeals were disposed of, which included 27 dismissed and 24 withdrawn or struck out. See Table 7.11.

Administrative Court

There were 16,300 applications for permission to apply for judicial review in the Administrative Court, a 24 per cent increase on 2009. Of these, around 10,500 were received, 5,200 applications were refused and 1,100 were granted. The majority of these applications, as in previous years, concerned asylum and immigration matters. There were 460 applications for judicial review which were dealt with in 2010, a six per cent decrease on 2009. Of these, 194 were allowed, 256 dismissed and 13 were withdrawn. See (Table 7.12).

A total of 96 appeals by way of case stated were received in 2010, similar to the level in the previous year when there were 88. The majority of these, 77 per cent, were appeals from magistrates’ courts, as in previous years. There were 73 such appeals dealt with during the year, of which 31 were allowed and 41 dismissed. (Table 7.13).

There were 3,280 appeals/applications disposed of in the Administrative Court during 2010, a decrease of over 40 per cent on 2009. The vast majority of these related to reconsideration of asylum and immigration decisions (Table 7.14). The transfer of reconsideration applications to the Upper Tribunal on 15 February 2010 resulted in a significant reduction in appeals and applications received by the Administrative Court.

In 2010, just over 13,000 cases were received in the administrative court, a reduction of 17 per cent on the previous year.

Family Division

The number of cases in 2010 in the Family Division of the High Court was not available at time of publication.


146

Table 7.1Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 1Appeals entered and disposed of, 2010

Number of appeals

Country or Jurisdiction of origin

Number of appeals

entered

Appeals disposed of, by resultAppeals pending

at end of year

Dismissed after

hearing

Varied after

hearing

Allowed after

hearing

Disposed without a

hearing 2 Total

Overseas:

Anquilla 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

Antigua and Barbuda 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

The Bahamas 10 1 0 2 1 4 9

Belize 4 0 0 3 2 5 2

Bermuda 2 1 1 1 0 3 3

Cayman Islands 1 1 0 2 0 3 1

Cook Islands 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

Gibraltar 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Guernsey 3 0 0 0 0 0 1

Isle of Man 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

Jamaica 15 0 0 1 0 1 18

Mauritius 10 2 0 6 0 8 8

St Christopher & Nevis 1 0 0 1 0 1 2

St Lucia 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Trinidad and Tobago 26 3 0 1 0 4 24

Turks & Caicos 2 0 0 1 0 1 1

United Kingdom:

Appeals under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 80 11 1 18 3 33 75

Source:Judicial Committee of the Privy CouncilNote:1 In 2009 the old case management system in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was shut down when they moved to

the Supreme Court in August 2009, so they had to rely on paper records. A new system is now in place. As a consequence of this system change, in 2010 some of the Appeals Pending figures do not exactly match with last year’s pending figures

2 Dismissed for non-prosecution or withdrawn


147

Table 7.2Judicial committee of the Privy Council Petitions for special leave to appeal heard, granted and refused, 2010

Number of petitions

Country or jurisdiction of origin Granted Refused

Total number

heard

The Bahamas 6 4 10Belize 1 0 1Bermuda 1 1 2Cayman Islands 0 1 1Guernsey 1 2 3Isle of Man 0 2 2Jamaica 3 6 9Jersey 1 2 3Mauritius 0 5 5St Lucia 0 1 1Trinidad and Tobago 6 3 9

Total 19 27 46

Source:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council


148

Table 7.3Supreme CourtApplications for permission to appeal presented and disposed of, 2010


Courts from which appeals were brought


presented

Appeals disposed of, by resultTotal

disposed ofWithdrawn Allowed

Allowed on terms Refused Dismissed

England and Wales

Court of Appeal

Civil 181 3 68 1 91 0 163

Criminal 20 0 7 0 5 0 12

High Court

Civil 2 0 2 0 0 0 2

Criminal 8 0 2 0 6 0 8

Scotland

Court of Session 17 0 2 0 15 0 17

Northern Ireland

Court of Appeal

Civil 12 0 2 0 9 0 11

Criminal 3 0 0 0 3 0 3

High Court

Civil 2 0 0 0 2 0 2

Criminal 2 0 0 0 2 0 2

Other

Courts Martial Appeal Court 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Attorney General’s reference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 247 3 83 1 133 0 220

Source:UK Supreme Court


149

Table 7.4Supreme CourtAppeals presented and disposed of, 2010

Number of appeals

Courts from which appeals were brought

Appeals presented

Appeals disposed of, by result

Total disposals

Disposed without a judgment Allowed Dismissed

England and Wales

Court of Appeal

Civil 50 2 25 19 46

Criminal 10 0 0 5 5

High Court

Civil 0 0 0 0 0

Criminal 0 0 0 0 0

Scotland

Court of Session 7 0 6 1 7

Northern Ireland

Court of Appeal

Civil 1 0 1 0 1

Criminal 0 0 0 0 0

High Court

Civil 0 0 0 0 0

Criminal 0 0 0 0 0

Other

Courts Martial Appeal Court 0 0 0 0 0

Attorney General’s reference 0 0 0 0 0

Total 68 2 32 25 59

Source:UK Supreme Court


150

Table 7.5House of Lords and Supreme CourtCivil appeals presented from the Court of Appeal, disposed of by judgment, by subject matter, 2006-20101

Number of appeals determined

Subject matter 2006 2007 2008 Jan-July 2009

Aug-Dec 2009

2010

Administrative 3 1 13 0 0 0Arbitration 0 1 0 0 0 1Asylum/Immigration 0 4 5 6 7 11Commercial 1 3 3 1 0 0Company 0 1 2 0 3 2Contract 0 3 3 5 1 2Crime 0 2 17 11 2 7Defamation2 - - - - - 1Discrimination 1 3 0 0 2 0Employment 7 0 0 1 0 2European Law 1 1 2 0 0 0Family 6 0 1 4 3 3Finance & Credit 0 1 0 0 0 1Human Rights 14 9 10 4 3 1Intellectual Property 0 1 1 2 0 0International 5 0 0 0 0 0Judicial Review2 - - - - - 2Land 3 1 1 1 0 2Landlord and Tenant 0 1 6 1 0 6Marine Insurance2 - - - - - 1Other2 - - - - - 3Planning 1 1 0 0 1 2Personal Injury2 - - - - - 4Practice & Procedure 3 2 2 0 0 2Revenue 5 2 3 2 0 1Social Security2 - - - - - 2Tort 9 8 5 3 1 1

Total 59 45 74 41 23 57

Source:House of Lords and Supreme CourtNote:1 In October 2009 the United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC) replaced the Appellate Committee of the House of

Lords as the highest court in the UK so the figrues presented up to and including January-July 2009 are for the House of Lords and those from August-December 2009 are for the UKSC

2 New subject matter category from 2010 so previous years not applicable


151

Table 7.6Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)Applications for leave to appeal, by type and result 2006–2010


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Applications received

Conviction 1,596 1,508 1,588 1,435 1,488

Sentence 5,082 5,087 5,422 5,443 5,454

Other Receipts 1 259 305 230 317 308

Total 6,937 6,900 7,240 7,195 7,250

Applications considered by single judge

Conviction

Granted 291 288 212 275 242

Refused 843 881 774 958 773

Sentence

Granted 1,261 1,363 1,204 1,298 1,184

Refused 2,503 2,763 2,468 2,948 2,608

Total 4,898 5,295 4,658 5,479 4,807

Applications renewed

Conviction 481 520 400 477 370

Sentence 831 845 670 763 667

Total 1,312 1,365 1,070 1,240 1,037

Applications to renew granted by Full Court

Conviction 137 125 146 117 148

Sentence 425 519 663 429 500

Total 562 644 809 546 648

Source:Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)Note:1 Other Receipts include the following applications: – Applications under s159 Criminal Justice Act 1988 – Interlocutory Appeals under s6 Criminal Justice Act 1987 – Appeals against Minimum Terms for mandatory life sentences set by the High Court under s22

Criminal Justice Act 2003 – References from the Attorney General under s36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 – Prosecution Rights of Appeal – Confiscation and Restraint Order appeals under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 – Appeals against Wasted Costs Orders under section 3(c) of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General)

(Amendment) Regulations 1991


152

Table 7.7Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)Results of appeals heard by Full Court, 2006–2010

Number of appeals

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Conviction

Allowed 181 196 188 164 187

Dismissed 391 327 250 266 309

Sentence

Allowed 1,391 1,632 1,567 1,372 1,456

Dismissed 575 619 527 515 625

Total 2,538 2,774 2,532 2,317 2,577

Number of retrials ordered 1 58 83 72 59 56

Source:Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)Note:1 The number of conviction appeals allowed includes the number of re-trials ordered


153

Table 7.8Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Final appeals filed and disposed of, showing court appealed from and results, 2010

Number of appeals

Court or tribunal appealed from

Total appeals

filed1


Total disposalsAllowed2 Dismissed3

Dismissed by consent4

Struck out5

Otherwise disposed of6

Chancery 144 28 56 19 2 1 106

Revenue 14 8 12 1 0 0 21

Bankruptcy 5 9 3 1 0 5 18

Family Division 53 26 14 2 0 1 43

Queen’s Bench 102 44 50 14 2 4 114

Queen’s Bench Administrative Court 161 44 86 23 1 17 171

Queen’s Bench Commercial 62 22 31 12 1 1 67

Queen’s Bench Admiralty 2 1 0 0 0 0 1

County Court 206 88 73 48 3 7 219

County Court Family 52 31 17 1 0 0 49

County Court Admiralty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lands Tribunal 1 1 2 0 0 0 3

Employment Appeal Tribunal 34 17 18 14 0 0 49

Asylum & Immigration Tribunal 302 193 46 25 1 35 300

Patents Court 14 7 13 2 0 0 22

Social Security Commissioner 2 1 2 1 0 0 4

Other Tribunals 26 9 11 0 0 5 25

Total 1,180 529 434 163 10 76 1,212

Source:Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Note:1 Filed: Cases filed/setdown within period2 Allowed: Appeals given a final result of ‘Allowed’ or ‘Allowed with consent’3 Dismissed: Appeals given a final result of ‘Refused’4 Dismissed by consent: Appeals given a final result of ‘Dismissed with consent’5 Struck out for failure to provide documents: Appeals given a final result of ‘Dismissal list’ or ‘Struck out’6 Otherwise disposed of: Appeals given a final result of ‘Not our Jurisdiction’, ‘Totally without merit’, ‘Varied with consent’, ‘Other result’,

and ‘Remitted’


154

Table 7.9Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Interlocutory appeals filed and disposed of, showing court appealed from and results, 2010

Number of appeals

Court or tribunal appealed from

Total appeals

filed1


Total disposalsAllowed2 Dismissed3

Dismissed by consent4

Struck out5

Otherwise disposed of6

Chancery 4 2 0 0 0 0 2

Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bankruptcy 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Family Division 2 3 0 5 0 1 9

Queen’s Bench 30 13 14 1 0 0 28

Queen’s Bench Administrative Court 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Queen’s Bench Commercial 1 1 1 0 0 0 2

Queen’s Bench Admiralty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

County Court 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

County Court Family 4 2 3 0 0 0 5

County Court Admiralty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lands Tribunal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Employment Appeal Tribunal 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Asylum & Immigration Tribunal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Patents Court 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Social Security Commissioner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Tribunals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 45 21 19 6 0 1 47

Source:Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Note:1 Filed: Cases filed/setdown within period2 Allowed: Appeals given a final result of ‘Allowed’ or ‘Allowed with consent’3 Dismissed: Appeals given a final result of ‘Refused’4 Dismissed by consent: Appeals given a final result of ‘Dismissed with consent’5 Struck out for failure to provide documents: Appeals given a final result of ‘Dismissal list’ or ‘Struck out’6 Otherwise disposed of: Appeals given a final result of ‘Not our Jurisdiction’, ‘Totally without merit’, ‘Varied with consent’, ‘Other result’,

and ‘Remitted’


155

Table 7.10Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Applications set down and disposed of, 2006–2010


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Full Court1

Filed 230 201 249 265 267

Disposed 245 215 243 245 267

Single Judge

Set down 251 152 213 216 281

Disposed 247 150 195 213 270

Permission to Appeal

Set down 2,397 2,574 2,759 2,443 2,730

Disposed 2,530 2,416 2,579 2,573 2,571

Registrar / Master

Set down 87 79 73 66 75

Disposed 87 83 77 60 73

Total

Filed / Set down 2,965 3,006 3,294 2,990 3,353

Disposed 3,109 2,864 3,094 3,091 3,181

Source:Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Note:1 Includes new ‘leave to appeal’ cases


156

Table 7.11High Court – Chancery DivisionAppeals and special cases from inferior courts and tribunals set down and determined, showing subject matter and results, 2010

Number of appeals

Subject matter

Total set down for

hearing


Total disposals

Allowed after hearing

Dismissed after hearing

Withdrawn or struck out

Bankruptcy

County courts 27 9 6 3 18

High Court Registrars 17 4 6 5 15

Total 44 13 12 8 33

Tribunals1 36 3 8 12 23

County courts & Chancery Masters 21 3 7 4 14

Source:High Court – Chancery DivisionNote:1 From April 2009 the majority of the Tribunal Appeals went under the jurisdiction of The Upper Tribunal,

Tax & Chancery Chamber


157

Table 7.12High Court – Administrative Court1

Summary statistics on Judicial Review applications, 20102


Applications for permission to apply for Judicial Review

Applications for Judicial Review disposed of, by result

Total

Determined by the Court

Received Granted Refused Allowed Dismissed Withdrawn

Nature of Review

Immigration / Asylum 8,122 613 3,967 61 96 5 162

Criminal 335 68 197 32 28 2 62

Others 2,091 419 1,021 101 132 6 239

Total 10,548 1,100 5,185 194 256 13 463

Source:High Court – Administrative CourtNotes:1 Includes Regional Offices of the Administrative Court2 83% of cases received in 2010 were issued in London


Summary statistics on appeals by way of case stated, 20102

Number of appeals

Total Received



TotalAllowed Dismissed Withdrawn

Court or Tribunal appealed from

Crown Court 22 4 11 0 15

Magistrates’ court 74 27 30 1 58

Total 96 31 41 1 73

Source:High Court – Administrative CourtNotes:1 Includes Regional Offices of the Administrative Court2 86% of cases received in 2010 were issued in London


158


Summary statistics on applications and appeals other than for Judicial Review or by way of case stated, 2010 2

Number of appeals / applications

Total Received

Appeals / applications disposed of, by result


TotalAllowed Dismissed Withdrawn

Nature of appeal / application

Statutory

Planning and related 157 14 44 0 58

Others 852 165 190 8 363

Habeas Corpus 34 0 1 0 1

Committal for contempt 7 0 0 0 0

Reconsideration under s103a NIAA 20023 1,313 318 2536 0 2,854

Total 2,363 497 2,771 8 3,276

Source:High Court – Administrative CourtNotes:1 Includes Regional Offices of the Administrative Court2 92% of cases received in 2010 were issued in London3 NIAA 2002 refers to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act of that year. The decrease in Reconsideration

in 2010 was due to the jurisdiction on these matters being passed to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal in February 2010. In the first three months of 2010 there were 1,216 Reconsideration received in the Administrative Court and 97 for the remainder of 2010


159

Table 7.15Appellate courtsSummary statistics on overall caseload, 2006–2010

Number of cases

Court 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 105 97 33 65 88

House of Lords 1

from Courts in England & Wales 61 57 62 37 -

from elsewhere 12 15 9 3 -

Supreme Court 2

from Courts in England & Wales - - - 26 60

from elsewhere - - - 4 8

Court of Appeal

Civil Division 1,184 1,248 1,286 1,275 1,225

Criminal Division 3 6,937 6,900 7,240 7,195 7,250

High Court

Chancery Division (Bankruptcy appeals only) 148 29 57 44 44

Administrative Court 4 10,700 11,293 12,316 15,620 13,007

Family Division 5 59 72 58 31 n/a

Total 19,206 19,711 21,061 24,300 21,682

Sources:Individual Appellate courts as shownNotes:1 In October 2009 the United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC) replaced the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords as the highest

court in the UK so the figures for 2009 are for January to July 20092 In October 2009 the United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC) replaced the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords as the highest

court in the UK so the figures for 2009 are for August to December 20093 Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) figures include applications for leave to appeal4 Administrative Court figures include applications for permission to apply for Judicial Review, appeals by way of case stated and

statutory appeals; and in addition: from 2003, statutory Reviews under s101 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act (NIAA) 2002 from 2006, Reconsideration under s103a of the NIAA 2002

5 Family Division figures include appeals under s94 of the Children Act 1989 from 2002 onwards and the figure for 2010 is currently not available


160

Chapter 8

The Mental Capacity Act

The Mental Capacity Act | Chapter 8

162

Chapter 8: The Mental Capacity Act

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides a statutory framework to empower and protect vulnerable people who are not able to make their own decisions. It makes it clear who can take decisions, in which situations, and how they should go about this. It enables people to plan ahead for a time when they may lose capacity.

The Act created two new public bodies to support the statutory framework, both of which are designed around the needs of those who lack capacity.

1. The Court of Protection.

2. The Public Guardian, supported by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG).

Information on the data sources used for the Mental Capacity Act statistics can be found in Annex A. Explanations for some of the main terms used in this section can be found in the Glossary. The tables of detailed data can be found immediately following this section of commentary.


There were 20,500 applications made to the Court of Protection under the •Mental Capacity Act 2005 in 2010. Around 77 per cent of these (15,700) were applications for the appointment of a property and affairs deputy or applications by an existing deputy or attorney.

Just under 17,800 final orders under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were •made in 2010, with the vast majority, 69 per cent, relating to the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs.

During 2010, over 182,700 Powers of Attorney (POA) were received by the •Office of the Public Guardian, an increase of 69 per cent on 2009. The vast majority, nearly 90 per cent, were for Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA).


163

The Court of Protection

The Court of Protection is a specialist court created under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It makes specific decisions, and also appoints other people (called deputies) to make decisions for people who lack the capacity to do this for themselves. These decisions are related to their property, financial affairs, health and personal welfare.

The Court of Protection has powers to:

decide whether a person has the capacity to make a particular decision for •themselves;

make declarations, decisions or orders on financial or welfare matters •affecting people who lack capacity to make these decisions;

appoint a deputy to make ongoing decisions for people lacking capacity to •make those decisions;

decide whether a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) or Enduring Power of •Attorney (EPA) is valid;

remove deputies or attorneys who fail to carry out their duties; and •

hear cases concerning objections to the registration of an LPA or EPA. •

The majority of applications to the court are decided on the basis of paper evidence without holding a hearing. In around 95 per cent of cases, the applicant does not need to attend court.

Some applications such as those relating to personal welfare, objections in relation to deputies and attorneys, or large gifts or settlements for Inheritance Tax purposes may be contentious and it will be necessary for the court to hold a hearing to decide the case.

The Court of Protection operates from its central registry in Archway, North London, but it also hears cases in a variety of regional courts including Birmingham, Preston, Bristol and Cardiff. During 2010, there were up to five full time judges in Archway and a further 32 district judges and 38 circuit judges nominated to hear cases in the regions. The chart shows the breakdown of listed hearings in 2010 between Archway, the Royal Courts of Justice and the regions.


164

Court of Protection Hearings, 2010

46%

3%

51%

Archway (London)

Royal Courts of Justice

Regional HearingCentres

Around 77 per cent of all applications relate to the court’s property and affairs jurisdiction, predominantly applications to appoint a deputy or to vary the powers of an existing deputy. A deputy order authorises the deputy to take possession or control of the person’s property and affairs and to exercise the same powers of management as if they were beneficial owner, although the court will limit the powers of the deputy if it considers it appropriate to do so. In 2010 around 240 applications per month were by existing deputies seeking to vary or extend their powers.

Most applications relating to the court’s personal welfare jurisdiction were for an order appointing a deputy for personal welfare including hybrid applications where the applicant was seeking an order relating to both personal welfare and property and affairs (Table 8.1). In 2010 the decrease in cases recorded under ‘Other’, compared to previous years, was due to more accurate recording of these as ‘Applications for appointment of a property and affairs deputy’ or as ‘Applications by an existing deputy or registered attorney’.

Section 50 of the Act imposes a general requirement for the applicant to seek the permission of the court before making an application which, taken together with the requirements in the court rules, means that permission is almost always required for personal welfare applications. In 2010 the court made 133 orders appointing a deputy for personal welfare, the same level as in the previous year (Table 8.2). This means the court is still refusing permission in up to 70 per cent of applications for a deputy for personal welfare. The reason for this low success


165

rate is that the Code of Practice2 provides that “deputies for personal welfare decisions will only be required in the most difficult cases where:

important and necessary actions cannot be carried out without the court’s •authority; or

there is no other way of settling the matter in the best interests of the •person who lacks capacity to make personal welfare decisions.”

The majority of applications relating to lasting powers of attorney were made by the Public Guardian. The Public Guradian is prevented from registering the instrument if the LPA contains ineffective provisions and he must apply to court for a ruling as to whether the instrument is valid. The Public Guardian introduced new prescribed forms of lasting power of attorney in October 2009, which, as expected has slightly reduced the error rate on the forms, and therefore applications by the Public Guardian.

The number of applications in relation to enduring powers of attorney (EPA) reduced by 30 per cent compared to the previous year, from 900 to 600. Most of these applications were objections to registration. The Mental Capacity Act replaced EPAs with LPAs, but any EPAs made before 1 October 2007 can still be registered with the OPG.

Office of the Public Guardian

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG), an agency of the Ministry of Justice, was established in October 2007, and supports the Public Guardian in registering Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPA), Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPA) and supervising Court of Protection (COP) appointed Deputies.

The OPG supports and promotes decision making for those who lack capacity or would like to plan for their future, within the framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The role of the Public Guardian is to protect people who lack capacity from abuse.

The Public Guardian, supported by the OPG, helps protect people who lack capacity by:

setting up and managing a register of LPA; •

setting up and managing a register of EPA; •

setting up and managing a register of Court appointed Deputies, supervising •Court appointed Deputies, working with other relevant organisations (for example, social services, if the person who lacks capacity is receiving social care);

receiving reports from Attorneys acting under LPAs and from Deputies; and •

2 Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice (TSO 2007)


166

dealing with cases, by way of investigations, where concerns are raised about •the way in which Attorneys or Deputies are carrying out their duties.

Powers of Attorney

Enduring Power of Attorney

A Power of Attorney created under the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 appoints an Attorney to deal with the Donor’s property and financial affairs. Existing EPAs will continue to operate under Schedule 4 of the Mental Capacity Act, which replaces the EPA Act 1985.

Lasting Power of Attorney

A Power of Attorney created under the Mental Capacity Act appoints an ‘Attorney’ to make decisions about the Donor’s personal welfare (including healthcare) or deal with the Donor’s property and affairs.

An LPA is a legal document that someone (the Donor) makes using a special form. It allows that person to choose someone in the present time, called the ‘Attorney’, that they trust to make decisions on their behalf, at a time in the future when they either lack the mental capacity or no longer wish to make those decisions themselves. The decisions could be about the Donor’s property and affairs or about their personal welfare.

Making an LPA is the only way to make plans for a time in the future when a person may lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves. An LPA can only be used after it is registered with the OPG.

Quarterly comparison of EPAs and LPAs, 2009-2010

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec

2009 2010

EPAs LPAs


167

There are two types of LPA: The Property and Affairs LPA; and The Personal Welfare LPA.

There were 163,000 LPAs in 2010, a rise of 86 per cent on 2009. There were also 19,700 EPAs, a decrease of four per cent on 2009. The number of LPAs continued to increase in the years following their introduction in October 2007.

Deputyships

A Deputy is appointed by the Court of Protection. A Deputy is legally responsible for acting and making decisions on behalf of a person who lacks capacity to make those decisions themselves.

The Public Guardian is also personally responsible for the management and organisation of the OPG, including the use of public money and the way it manages its assets. A separate Public Guardian Board scrutinises the work of the Public Guardian and then reports to the Lord Chancellor.

There were 11,900 Deputyships appointments in 2010, a fall of six per cent on the previous year. See Table 8.3 for further information.


168

Tabl

e 8.

1C

ourt

of P

rote

ctio

nSu

mm

ary

case

wor

k st

atis

tics:

Appl

icat

ions

by

quar

ter,

Q1

2010

–Q4

2010

Num

ber o

f cas

es

Type

of p

roce

edin

gs

2010

Jan-

Mar

Apr

-Jun

Jul-

Sep

Oct

-Dec

Tota

l

App

licat

ions

mad

e un

der t

he M

enta

l Cap

acit

y A

ct 2

005

5,00

55,

092

5,28

65,

076

20,4

59of

whi

ch

Appl

icat

ions

for a

ppoi

ntm

ent o

f a p

rope

rty

and

affa

irs d

eput

y2,

938

3,19

53,

440

3,22

812

,801

plus

app

licat

ions

for a

'one

-off

' pro

pert

y an

d af

fairs

ord

er16

019

112

117

764

9

Appl

icat

ions

for a

ppoi

ntm

ent o

f a h

ealth

and

wel

fare

dep

uty

106

9372

6833

9pl

us a

pplic

atio

ns fo

r a 'o

ne-o

ff' h

ealth

and

wel

fare

ord

er15

1822

1772

Appl

icat

ions

for a

ppoi

ntm

ent o

f a h

ybrid

dep

uty 1

206

162

156

154

678

plus

app

licat

ions

for a

'one

-off

' pro

pert

y &

aff

airs

and

hea

lth &

wel

fare

ord

er14

1931

3610

0

Appl

icat

ions

for o

rder

s ap

poin

ting

new

trus

tees

214

713

516

613

057

8

Appl

icat

ions

to e

xecu

te w

ills,

appl

y fo

r gift

s an

d or

ders

for s

ettle

men

t, in

clud

ing

thos

e w

here

th

ere

is a

n En

durin

g Po

wer

of A

ttor

ney

or L

astin

g Po

wer

of A

ttor

ney

133

125

135

124

517

Appl

icat

ions

rela

ting

to E

ndur

ing

Pow

ers o

f Att

orne

y 315

917

617

112

963

5

Appl

icat

ions

rela

ting

to L

astin

g Po

wer

s of A

ttor

ney 3

5860

6076

254

Appl

icat

ions

by

an e

xist

ing

depu

ty o

r reg

iste

red

atto

rney

833

811

683

524

2,85

1

Appl

icat

ions

for d

isch

arge

of t

he d

eput

y (w

here

P c

ease

s to

lack

cap

acity

/the

dep

uty

wis

hes t

o re

tire

/ the

dep

uty

is n

o lo

nger

sui

tabl

e to

act

)59

8686

7730

8

Oth

er4

177

2114

333

667

7

Sour

ce:

Cour

t of P

rote

ctio

nN

otes

:1

Hyb

rid is

whe

re th

e ap

plic

ant i

s ap

plyi

ng fo

r bot

h a

prop

erty

and

aff

airs

dep

uty

and

a he

alth

and

wel

fare

dep

uty

2 Ap

plic

atio

ns m

ade

unde

r sec

tions

36(

9), 5

4 an

d 96

(1)(

k) o

f the

Tru

stee

Act

192

5, a

nd s

ectio

n 20

(2)(

c) o

f the

Tru

sts o

f Lan

d an

d Ap

poin

tmen

t of T

rust

ees A

ct 1

996

3 In

clud

es o

bjec

tions

to re

gist

ratio

n an

d ap

plic

atio

ns to

det

erm

ine

of th

e va

lidity

of t

he E

PA o

r LPA

doc

umen

t4

Incl

udes

app

licat

ions

und

er s

ectio

n 21

A of

the

Men

tal C

apac

ity A

ct th

e D

epriv

atio

n of

Lib

erty

Saf

egua

rds.

In 2

010

the

decr

ease

in c

ases

reco

rded

und

er ‘O

ther

’, co

mpa

red

to p

revi

ous y

ears

, is d

ue to

mor

e ac

cura

te re

cord

ing

of th

ese

as A

pplic

atio

ns fo

r app

oint

men

t of a

pro

pert

y an

d af

fairs

dep

uty

or a

s App

licat

ions

by

an

exis

ting

depu

ty o

r reg

iste

red

atto

rney


169

Tabl

e 8.

2C

ourt

of P

rote

ctio

nSu

mm

ary

case

wor

k st

atis

tics:

Ord

ers

by q

uart

er, Q

1 20

10–Q

4 20

10N

umbe

r of c

ases

Type

of p

roce

edin

gs

2010

Jan-

Mar

Apr

-Jun

Jul-

Sep

Oct

-Dec

Tota

l

Ord

ers

mad

e un

der t

he M

enta

l Cap

acit

y A

ct 2

005

4,30

73,

339

5,36

14,

791

17,7

98of

whi

ch

Ord

ers

appo

intin

g de

puty

for p

rope

rty

and

affa

irs3,

291

2,28

83,

316

2,87

411

,769

plus

'one

-off

' ord

ers

rela

ting

to p

rope

rty

and

affa

irs11

3725

412

242

4

Ord

ers

appo

intin

g de

puty

for h

ealth

and

wel

fare

39

2541

2813

3pl

us 'o

ne-o

ff' o

rder

s re

latin

g to

hea

lth a

nd w

elfa

re9

1557

7815

9

Ord

ers

appo

intin

g a

hybr

id d

eput

y 10

26

513

plus

'one

-off

' ord

ers

rela

ting

to b

oth

prop

erty

& a

ffai

rs a

nd h

ealth

& w

elfa

re0

06

612

Ord

ers

mad

e ap

poin

ting

new

trus

tees

210

793

101

133

434

Ord

ers

auth

oris

ing

the

exec

utio

n of

will

s, th

e m

akin

g of

gift

s an

d th

e gr

antin

g of

set

tlem

ents

, in

clud

ing

thos

e re

latin

g to

End

urin

g Po

wer

of A

ttor

ney

and

Last

ing

Pow

er o

f Att

orne

y54

3511

614

034

5

Ord

ers

rela

ting

to E

ndur

ing

Pow

ers o

f Att

orne

y 385

4948

4722

9

Ord

ers

rela

ting

to L

astin

g Po

wer

s of A

ttor

ney 3

4429

3243

148

Ord

ers

rela

ting

to a

n ex

istin

g de

puty

ship

or a

ttor

neys

hip

432

524

667

442

2,06

5

Ord

ers d

isch

argi

ng th

e de

puty

(whe

re P

cea

ses t

o la

ck c

apac

ity/t

he d

eput

y w

ishe

s to

retir

e/th

e de

puty

is n

o lo

nger

sui

tabl

e to

act

)1

738

5710

3

Oth

er4

234

235

679

816

1,96

4

Sour

ce:

Cour

t of P

rote

ctio

nN

otes

:1

Hyb

rid is

whe

re th

e Co

urt h

as a

ppoi

nted

dep

uty

for b

oth

a pr

oper

ty a

nd a

ffai

rs d

eput

y an

d he

alth

and

wel

fare

2 O

rder

s as a

resu

lt of

app

licat

ions

mad

e un

der s

ectio

ns 3

6(9)

, 54

and

96(1

)(k) o

f the

Trus

tee

Act 1

925,

and

sect

ion

20(2

)(c) o

f the

Trus

ts o

f Lan

d an

d Ap

poin

tmen

t of T

rust

ees A

ct

1996

3 In

clud

es u

phol

ding

or d

ism

issi

ng o

bjec

tions

to re

gist

ratio

n, d

eter

min

ing

the

valid

ity o

f the

doc

umen

t and

dire

ctin

g th

e Pu

blic

Gua

rdia

n to

regi

ster

the

inst

rum

ent

4 In

clud

es a

pplic

atio

ns u

nder

sect

ion

21A

of th

e M

enta

l Cap

acity

Act

the

Dep

rivat

ion

of L

iber

ty S

afeg

uard

s. In

201

0 th

e in

crea

se in

cas

es re

cord

ed u

nder

‘Oth

er’, c

ompa

red

to

prev

ious

yea

rs, i

s due

to c

hang

es to

the

Cour

t of P

rote

ctio

n (C

P) in

form

atio

n m

anag

emen

t sys

tem

that

allo

w C

P to

reco

rd a

wid

er ra

nge

of o

rder

s. P

revi

ously

CP

coul

d on

ly

reco

rd o

ne o

rder

per

app

licat

ion,

so in

terim

ord

ers,

etc

mad

e be

fore

the

final

ord

er w

ere

not

reco

rded

. Now

CP

can

reco

rd m

ultip

le o

rder

s per

app

licat

ion


170

Table 8.3Office of the Public Guardian (OPG)Summary casework statistics: Powers of Attorney received and deputyships appointed, Q1 2010–Q4 2010

Number of cases

2010

Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Total

Powers of AttorneyEPAs1 Received 5,458 4,965 4,949 4,317 19,689LPAs2 Received 38,558 41,847 42,738 39,902 163,045Total POAs Received 44,016 46,812 47,687 44,219 182,734

Number of Deputyships3 appointed 3,584 2,370 3,089 2,901 11,944

Source:Office of the Public GuardianNotes:1 An Enduring Power of Attorney allows the person creating it to nominate someone they trust (often a spouse or

close family member) to manage their finances, should they themselves lose the mental capacity to do so in the future

2 A Lasting Powers of Attorney allows the person creating it (the Donor) to nominate someone now (the Attorney) that they trust to make decisions on their behalf about things such as property and affairs or personal welfare at a time in the future when they no longer wish to make those decisions or they may lack the mental capacity to make those decisions themselves

3 Deputyships - A Deputy is legally responsible for acting and making decisions on behalf of a person who lacks capacity to make decisions for themselves. The Deputy order sets out specific powers in relation to the person who lacks capacity. They will depend on the needs of the person and is ultimately the Court’s decision

Chapter 9

Offices of the Supreme Court

Offices of the Supreme Court | Chapter 9

172

Chapter 9: Offices of the Supreme Court

This chapter deals with the Officers of the Senior Court which include:

The Official Solicitor to the Senior Courts. The Offices of the Official •Solicitor and the Public Trustee remain an arms length body, the purpose of which is to serve the two statutory office holders, the Official Solicitor to the Senior Courts and the Public Trustee who each have separate statutory and other functions. The Public trustee is not an officer of the Senior Courts.

The Tipstaff whose main responsibility is the enforcement of warrants and •orders issued by Judges throughout all divisions of the High Court. Much of the Tipstaff’s work relates to children who either have been, or are at risk of being, abducted.

Information on the data sources used for the Offices of the Supreme Court statistics can be found in Annex A. The tables of detailed data can be found immediately following this section of commentary.


There was a continuation of the upward trends seen in previous years in the •volume of new referrals and the volume of average number of active cases; a four per cent increase in the former and an 11 per cent increase in the latter compared to 2009.

Tipstaff casework included 870 child abduction warrants of arrest issued, •400 executed and 400 dismissed or suspended.


173

The Court Funds Office

The Court Funds Office supports the Accountant General and provides a banking service for the civil courts throughout England and Wales. It accounts for money being paid into and out of court, and where necessary administers any investments made with that money.

It administers approximately £4.7 billion of client assets. These assets can be broken down into a mixture of cash held on Special or Basic Interest bearing accounts or investments in the Equity Index Tracker Fund, an investment vehicle managed by Legal and General.

The Offices of the Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee

The Offices of the Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee support both the Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee.

The Official Solicitor is a statutory office holder appointed by the Lord Chancellor section 90 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

The Public Trustee (appointed under section 8 of the Public Trustee Act 1906) acts as executor or administrator of estates and as the appointed trustee of settlements. The Public Trustee’s aim is to provide an effective executor and trustee service of last resort on a non-profit-making basis; in so doing, his objective is to secure the best value for the beneficiaries.

Summary caseload statistics on the work of the Office of the Official Solicitor and Public Trustee are shown in Table 9.1

Tipstaff

The duties of the Tipstaff are many and varied but, in broad practical terms, the Tipstaff is the enforcement officer for the High Court. The principal areas of specific duties emanate from the Queen’s Bench, Chancery and Family Divisions and involve issues of bankruptcy, insolvency, wardship, child abduction, contempt of court and many other miscellaneous orders which involve taking action to enforce, or prevent breach of, orders of the court. There is one Tipstaff and two Assistant Tipstaff to cover England and Wales, and they are based at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

The single biggest area of work for the Tipstaff relates to Family Division cases involving missing or abducted children. The Tipstaff is responsible for executing warrants on a range of possible Orders in these circumstances, including a Collection Order (for the return of a child), a Location Order (for the whereabouts of a child to be discovered), a Passport Order (for the seizure of passports or other travel documents) and Port Alerts (to prevent a child being wrongfully removed from the UK). Orders of these types accounted for 86 per cent of all warrants executed by the Tipstaff in 2010.


174

In total, there were 460 warrants executed in 2010 and 430 warrants dismissed or suspended.

Tipstaff casework included 870 child abduction warrants of arrest issued, 400 executed and 400 dismissed or suspended. There were 120 warrants of arrest issued within the five Divisions, some 32 per cent from the Bankruptcy Division and 22 per cent from the Insolvency Division.

Summary caseload statistics on the work of the Tipstaff are shown in Table 9.2.


175

Table 9.1Office of the Official Solicitor and Public TrusteeSummary casework statistics, 2006–2010

Number of cases

Case type 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

New referralsFamily Litigation and Divorce 1,235 1,163 1,270 1,107 1,102Child Abduction 432 461 503 543 503Reciprocal Enforcement Maintenance Orders (REMO) 1 922 704 1,092 1,345 1,401

Civil Litigation (including Contempts) 955 988 878 816 901

Court of Protection, Property and Affairs 580 646 545 515 476

Court of Protection, Healthcare and Welfare2 - - - 248 292

Child Trust Funds 3 4,128 1,508 1,452 1,642 1,811

Estates, Trusts, Executorships, Pension & Institutional Funds 37 17 8 12 15

Total (excluding REMOs and Child Trust Funds) 3,239 3,275 3,204 3,241 3,289

Total 8,289 5,487 5,748 6,228 6,501

Average number of active cases 4

Family Litigation and Divorce 1,494 1,499 1,698 1,217 1,243Child Abduction 332 311 338 357 348Civil Litigation (including Contempts) 1,294 1,266 1,251 1,088 931

Court of Protection, Property and Affairs 760 692 437 502 323

Court of Protection, Healthcare and Welfare2 - - - 247 391

Child Trust Funds 3 1,202 3,714 5,336 6,503 7,931

Estates, Trusts, Executorships, Pension & Institutional Funds 1,759 1,058 552 427 357

Total (excluding Child Trust Funds) 5,639 4,826 4,276 3,838 3,593

Total 6,841 8,540 9,612 10,341 11,524

Source:Office of the Official Solicitor and Public TrusteeNotes:1 Applies from 1 April 2005 only. Relates to international maintenance claims, where one of the parties lives outside the UK in a

country or territory with which the UK has reciprocal arrangements for the enforcement of maintenance2 Post the Mental Capacity Act 2005, CoP healthcare and Welfare cases start in the CoP, not the Family Division3 Applies from 1 April 2005 only. The Official Solicitor can be appointed to act as the registered contact in the administration of the

Child Trust Fund scheme for children in care in England and Wales, where there is no parent able to do so4 Based on the average number of active cases month-by-month within each year shownDash means data not applicable


176

Table 9.2TipstaffCasework statistics, 2010

Number of warrants

Warrants of ArrestBrought forward

from 2009 Issued ExecutedDismissed or

SuspendedCarried over

to 2011

DivisionChancery 11 16 11 5 11Queen's Bench 16 19 11 3 21Bankruptcy 10 38 23 7 18Insolvency 15 26 12 15 14Family 6 21 9 3 15

Total 58 120 66 33 79

Child Abduction1

Child Abduction2 191 493 397 79 208Port Alerts3 115 375 0 320 170

Total 306 868 397 399 378

Source:TipstaffNote:1 Child abduction work includes Collection, Location and Passport Seizure orders. These are normally associated with

cases where a child has been, or is at risk of being, abducted and taken outside of England and Wales. These figures also include Collection, Location and Passport Seizure orders issued under the Forced Marriage Act, and absconders from Local Authority care

2 Location, Collection and Passport Seizure Order3 Live Port Alerts Maintained outside of Location, Collection and Passport Seizure Orders

Chapter 10

The Judiciary

The Judiciary | Chapter 10

178

Chapter 10: The Judiciary

This chapter deals with the number of days sat in court by judges, broken down by region and type of judge as well as the levels, by gender, of the Magistracy.

Information on the data sources used for the Judiciary statistics can be found in Annex A. Explanations for some of the main terms used in this section can be found in the Glossary. The tables of detailed data can be found immediately following this section of commentary.


During 2010, around 282,400 days were sat by judges (excluding magistrates) •on all types of work (excluding tribunals and other official functions).

Days sat in the Crown Court accounted for 39 per cent, while for the county •courts and the High court the proportion was 53 per cent and six per cent respectively.

London, the Royal Courts of Justice and the South East accounted for 44 per •cent of the days sat in 2010.

Justices of the peace (JPs) in the magistracy have varied in number slightly •over the years, declining to a level of 26,970 as at 1 April 2011, a fall of six per cent on the previous year. The proportion of male and female JPs was equal up to 2008, between 2008 and 2010 there were slightly more female JPs than male JPs.

There was a 38 per cent decline in the number of JPs appointed in 2010/11, •compared to 2009/10, to a level of just over 1,000. Around 54 per cent of those appointed were women, continuing this trend seen in the last three years.

The Judiciary of England and Wales can be separated into the following types of judge:

Heads of Division •

Lords Justices of Appeal •

High Court Judges •

Masters and Registrars of the Supreme Court •

Circuit Judges •

Recorders •

District and Deputy District Judges •

Judicial and Court Statistics 2010| Chapter 10

179

Tribunal Judges •

District and Deputy District Judges (magistrates’ courts) •

Justices of the Peace (or Magistrates). •

Divisional Heads

The Lord Chief Justice is the Head of the Judiciary for England and Wales and also Head of Criminal Justice.

Lords Justices

Together with the Lord Chief Justice and the Heads of Divisions, the Lords Justices are judges of the Court of Appeal.

High Court judges

There is a statutory limit of 108 High Court Judges who may sit in England and Wales to deal with the more complex and difficult cases.

High Court judges are assigned to one of the three divisions of the High Court: the Chancery Division; the Queen’s Bench Division; and the Family Division.

Circuit Judges, Recorders and District Judges

The majority of Crown Court work is undertaken by Circuit Judges and Recorders. In the county courts most of the work is undertaken by Circuit Judges, District Judges and deputy District Judges.

Due to moving the publication of this report forwards, the information contained within Table 10.1 of previous editions relating to the number of Circuit Judges, Recorders and District judges in post in each circuit was not available. This information is due to be published on the Judiciary website www.judiciary.gov.uk later in the summer of 2011.

District Judges (magistrates’ courts)

Full-time District Judges (magistrates’ courts) are salaried members of the judiciary appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. Generally sitting alone in a magistrates’ court, they are responsible for deciding matters of law and fact and for imposing sentences.

The Magistracy (Justices of the Peace)

Justices of the Peace (JP) (magistrates) are appointed by the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the Sovereign.

www.judiciary.gov.uk


180

Justice of the Peace, by gender, 1 April 2006-1 April 2011

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year, at 1 April

Men Women

Between 1 April 2009 and 1 April 2010 there was a fall of six per cent in the number of JPs to 26,970. This was partly due to courts’ closures, bench mergers and a reduced workload going through the magistrates’ courts. The proportion of male and female JPs was equal up to 2008 then between 2008 and 2010 there were slightly more female JPs (51 per cent) than male JPs.

The level of JP appointments fell by 38 per cent between 2009/10 and 2010/11 to just over 1,000. Between the peak of 2,410 in 2006/07 and 2010/11 there was a 58 per cent decline in the number of appointments.

The numbers of magistrates in England and Wales by gender, as at 1 April from 2006 to 2011 are shown in Table 10.4. Table 10.5 shows a similar time series of their appointments between financial years.

Judicial sitting days

Around 282,400 days were sat by judges (excluding magistrates) on all types of work (excluding tribunals and other official functions) during 2010. Over half the days sat were accounted for in the county courts whilst the Crown Court days sat accounted for 39 per cent, and the High Court the proportion was six per cent. London, the Royal Courts of Justice and the South East accounted for 44 per cent of the days sat in 2010.

Figures for the number of days sat in court and chambers by judges (except magistrates) are given in Tables 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3.


181

Judges Sitting Days, 2001-2011

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Days sat (Court & Chambers)

District & Deputy District Judges Recorders Circuit & Deputy Circuit Judges High & Deputy High Court Judges Lords Justices


182

Table 10.1 The JudiciaryDays sat1 by judge type, 2006-2010

Type of Judge 2006 2007 2008 20092 2010

Lords Justices 3,365 3,894 4,090 4,587 3,419High Court judges 13,452 14,257 14,129 20,508 13,899Deputy High Court judges 3,416 3,197 3,333 1,105 4,014Circuit judges 108,932 105,058 111,779 114,018 122,944Deputy circuit judges 1,922 2,020 2,562 2,223 1,540Recorders 24,291 26,191 23,490 22,255 26,278District judges 77,737 74,212 80,204 84,024 86,468Deputy district judges 17,430 19,118 22,343 22,219 23,862

Total3 250,544 247,946 261,929 270,936 282,424

Source:HM Courts and Tribunal Service and CREST system Notes:1 Days sat in court and chambers2 The figures for 2009 are estimates so should not be compared directly with 2010 or with previous years 3 These figures represent only the days sat in court or in chambers in the jurisdictions shown. Judges sit

in other areas, and also undertake a range of other functions outside the courtroom that are not shown here


183

Tabl

e 10

.2Th

e Ju

dici

ary

Day

s sa

t 1 by

judg

e ty

pe s

how

ing

type

of w

ork

deal

t with

, 201

0

Type

of j

udge

Cour

t of A

ppea

lH

igh

Cour

t

Crow

n Co

urt

Coun

ty c

ourt

Tota

lCr

imin

alCi

vil

Chan

cery

D

ivisi

onQ

ueen

’s Be

nch

Div

ision

2Fa

mily

D

ivisi

onT&

C co

urt 3

Gen

eral

Lis

t

Fam

ily La

w

Publ

icPr

ivat

e

Lord

s Jus

tices

678

2,39

745

242

570

00

00

3,41

9

Hig

h Co

urt j

udge

s1,

149

136

2,27

83,

750

2,52

535

13,

511

3636

130

13,8

99

Dep

uty

Hig

h Co

urt j

udge

s0

91,

775

859

373

621

181

156

156

304,

014

Circ

uit j

udge

s23

50

704

855

367

148

85,2

9612

,031

12,0

3116

,862

122,

944

Dep

uty

circu

it ju

dges

00

46

110

871

190

190

372

1,54

0

Reco

rder

s0

014

813

553

2821

,110

2,43

32,

433

1,51

426

,278

Dist

rict j

udge

s0

078

622

40

055

,976

55,9

765,

262

86,4

68

Dep

uty

dist

rict j

udge

s0

00

00

00

22,1

8522

,185

6223

,862

Tota

l 42,

062

2,54

25,

739

5,86

83,

390

1,148

110,

969

93,0

0624

,230

33,4

7228

2,42

4

Sour

ce:

HM

Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

Ser

vice

and

CRE

ST s

yste

m

Not

es:

1 D

ays

sat i

n co

urt a

nd c

ham

bers

2 Ad

min

istr

ativ

e Co

urt a

nd A

dmira

lty a

nd C

omm

erci

al C

ourt

s si

ttin

gs a

re in

clud

ed in

the

Que

en’s

Benc

h D

ivis

ion

figur

es

3 Te

chno

logy

and

Con

stru

ctio

n Co

urt (

T&C

cour

t)4

Thes

e fig

ures

repr

esen

t onl

y th

e da

ys s

at in

cou

rt o

r in

cham

bers

in th

e ju

risdi

ctio

ns s

how

n. Ju

dges

sit

in o

ther

are

as, a

nd a

lso

unde

rtak

e a

rang

e of

oth

er fu

nctio

ns o

utsi

de th

e co

urtr

oom

that

are

not

sho

wn

here


184

Table 10.3The JudiciaryDays sat 1 by HMCTS region, 2010

HMCTS region Days sat

London 61,214Midlands 38,897North East 34,887North West 42,752South East 49,745South West 26,209Royal Courts of Justice 14,507Wales 14,117

Elsewhere-Bulk centre 98

Total 2 282,424

Source:HM Courts and Tribunal Service and CREST system Notes:1 Days sat in court and chambers2 These figures represent only the days sat in court or in chambers in the jurisdictions shown. Judges

sit in other areas, and also undertake a range of other functions outside the courtroom that are not shown here


185

Table 10.4The MagistracyJustices of the Peace, by gender, 1 April 2006-1 April 2011

Number of JPs

Year Men Women Total

2006 14,519 14,346 28,8652007 15,007 14,809 29,8162008 14,672 14,747 29,4192009 14,472 14,798 29,2702010 14,067 14,540 28,6072011 13,186 13,780 26,966

Source:Ministry of Justice – Magistrates Recruitment and Appointments Branch

Table 10.5The MagistracyJustices of the Peace appointed, by gender, 2006/07–2010/11

Number of JPs

Year Men Women Total

2006/07 1,225 1,187 2,4122007/08 927 972 1,8992008/09 814 959 1,7732009/10 759 873 1,6322010/11 464 548 1,012

Source:Ministry of Justice – Magistrates Recruitment and Appointments Branch


186

Chapter 11

Assessment of litigation costs, and publicly funded legal services

Assessment of litigation costs, and publicly funded legal services | Chapter 11

188

Chapter 11: Assessment of litigation costs, and publicly funded legal services

This chapter deals with the funding of litigation work, whether through an award of costs to a successful litigant on the completion of court proceedings, or through public Legal Aid schemes. Information on the data sources used for the Offices of the Supreme Court statistics can be found in Annex A. The tables of detailed data can be found immediately following this section of commentary.


There were 11,580 cost bills assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office in •2010, remaining level since 2009 after a decline in previous years. Of these, civil legal aid assessments rose by five per cent to 4,540 on 2009.

95 per cent of defendants involved in trial cases committed to the Crown •Court received publicly-funded legal representation (where representation was known). This represented a decrease of three percentage points on 2009.

Detailed Assessment of Costs in Civil Proceedings

The detailed assessment of costs is the process of examining and if, necessary, reducing the bill of costs of a solicitor or Litigant in Person. Costs include not only the solicitor’s own professional fees, but also disbursements incurred including barristers’ and experts’ fees.

In 2010, the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) assessed 11,580 bills remaining level since 2009. It reflects the levelling out of the impact of Predictable Costs in Road Traffic Cases, the reduction in technical challenges to Conditional Fee Agreements and fixed success fees. There were 4,540 legal aid only assessments in 2010, a five per cent increase on the previous year. However, it was expected that this would drop as a result of the introduction of standard fees in Section 31 Public Law care proceedings. Following the marked increase in appeals from Crown Court determining officers in 2007, in 2010 these returned to levels regularly seen in previous years. Compared to 2009 Court of Protection assessments fell by two per cent. A random sample over the years 2002-2010 of completed between parties’ assessments showed an average reduction of 30 per cent. The average reduction in Court of Protection bills for 2010 was 18 per cent.

Summary caseload statistics on the work of the Senior Courts Costs Office is shown in Table 11.1.


189

Separate statistics on costs assessments carried out by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court are shown in Table 11.2.

Publicly-funded legal services

The Legal Services Commission (LSC) operates the two Legal Aid schemes in England and Wales, through which nearly all publicly-funded legal services are commissioned from independent suppliers.

The Community Legal Service (CLS) provides civil and family legal services. Work commissioned via the CLS is divided into two types: Legal advice and assistance; and Legal representation by solicitors and barristers in civil or family cases.

The Criminal Defence Service (CDS) provides legal services to those arrested, charged or prosecuted in connection with a criminal offence.

Summary statistics on the monies spent and work commissioned by the Community Legal Services (CLS) and Criminal Defence Service (CDS) are shown in Table 11.3. The LSC annual report for 2010/11 will be published later in 2011 and it will be available at: www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/how/strategic_publications.asp#annual

For 2009/10 the LSC’s CLS and CDS delivered nearly 2.7 million acts of assistance between them, a decrease of two per cent on the previous year. Total cash payments and net expenditure for all publicly funded legal services both increased by two per cent. More detail on these issues is available from the Legal Services Commission website at: www.legalservices.gov.uk.

In 2010 means testing was extended to applicants for legal aid in the following criminal proceedings at the Crown Court:

Trials (cases committed/sent or transferred for trial by a magistrates court, •voluntary bills and re-trials ordered by the Court of Appeal);

Appeals from a magistrates’ court decision; and •

Committals for sentence. •

The Crown Court means testing scheme was first piloted at five courts in January 2010 followed by a gradual national roll out, by region, between April 2010 and June 2010.

The scheme for the Crown Court differs to the existing scheme in the magistrates’ court. In the magistrates’ courts an applicant is either eligible or ineligible for legal aid depending on their financial means. In contrast, in the Crown Court, all applicants for legal aid in trial and committed for sentence cases who submit a completed application form are eligible. Some, however, may have to pay towards part or all of their defence costs depending on the outcome of their means test.

www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/how/strategic_publications.asp#annual

www.legalservices.gov.uk


190

Under the Crown Court means testing scheme, applicants for legal aid in trial and committals for sentence cases automatically pass the interests of justice test. However, applications for legal aid in appeal cases at the Crown Court must satisfy the criteria for this test to be eligible for legal aid in the Crown Court.

Under the Crown Court means testing scheme applications for legal aid in trial, committals for sentence and appeal cases are filed and processed in the magistrates’ court.

Applications for legal aid in contempt proceedings (as referred to in Section 12(2)(f) of the Access to Justice Act 1999) and breaches (failure to comply with an order of the Crown Court) are not subject to the means test, but must satisfy the interests of justice criteria before a Representation Order for the Crown Court is granted. These applications are filed and processed in the Crown Court.

Between 2006 and 2009 year on year increases in applications for legal aid were observed. In 2010 around 123,100 applications for legal aid (in trial and committed for sentence cases) were made in magistrates’ courts for representation in the Crown Court. This represented a two per cent decrease on the previous year. The fall in the number of applications for legal aid coincides with the implementation of the Crown Court legal aid means test and changes in the growth of Crown Court receipts. However, it is too early to say with confidence what the cause of the decrease and effects of the new policies are.

In 2010 around 3,300 applications for legal aid in appeal cases were made in the magistrates’ courts for representation in the Crown Court. This represented an increase of 87 per cent on the previous year. This was due to the processing of legal aid applications for representation in the Crown Court for appeal cases moving from the Crown Court to the magistrates’ court (Table 11.6). A 69 per cent decrease between 2009 and 2010 in legal aid applications for appeal cases filed in the Crown Court corroborates further this explanation (Table 11.4).

For the same reason given for appeal cases, there has been a decrease in the number of legal aid applications filed in the Crown Court for trial cases (50 per cent between 2009 and 2010). However, legal aid applications for committed for sentence cases increased slightly by one per cent between 2009 and 2010 and this is due to the fact that breaches, which are counted under committed for sentence cases, continue to be filed in the Crown Court.

Overall 95 per cent of Crown Court defendants in cases committed or sent for trial in 2010 received publicly-funded legal representation (where representation was known). The remaining five per cent either received privately-funded representation or were not represented (Table 11.5). The corresponding figure for defendants committed to the Crown Court for sentence after a summary trial in the magistrates’ court was 91 per cent, and for those appealing against the decisions of magistrates’ courts, 56 per cent.

Statistics on the funding of Crown Court representation are given in Tables 11.4 to 11.6.


191

Table 11.1Senior Courts Costs Office Number of costs bills assessed, by type of case giving rise to the bill, 2006–2010

Number of bills

Type of case 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

‘Between parties’ assessments 2,459 2,205 1,888 1,788 1,788

Civil legal aid assessments 6,315 5,756 5,146 4,319 4,542

Receivers' costs in the Court of Protection1 4,082 4,528 4,710 5,054 4,960

Appeals against determination of costs in the Crown Court 366 528 387 365 289

Total assessments 13,222 13,017 12,131 11,526 11,579

Source:Senior Courts Costs Office

Note:1 For 2010 includes 292 bills lodged by the Official Solicitor

Table 11.2Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and House of LordsNumber of costs bills assessed and their total and average allowed values, 2005–2009

Cost bills assessed

Estimated total value

Estimated average

value

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

Petitions for special leave to appeal * * *

Appeals 15 £973,472 £64,898

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 1

Applications for permission to appeal 25 £114,234 £4,569

Appeals 17 £1,623,749 £95,514

Source:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and UK Supreme Court Note:1 The Supreme Court came into being on 1 October 2009. Pre-2010 data for the House of Lords petitions for

leave to appeal and appeals are available from previous editions of this publication on the MoJ website* Averages are not shown where there are fewer than 20 cases in a given year


192

Table 11.3Publicly-funded legal servicesSummary statistics on activity and expenditure1, 2005/06–2009/10

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

Community Legal Service (CLS)

Civil and Family: Representation

Cash payments (£m) £806.8 £774.2 £801.9 £849.4 £835.3

Acts of Assistance (thousands) 2 194.8 179.5 165.8 149.9 164.9

Civil and Family: Advice and Assistance (‘Legal help’)

Cash payments (£m) £284.1 £261.4 £260.4 £263.4 £301.0

Acts of Assistance (thousands) 3 801.4 884.6 834.6 927.7 975.7

CLS total

Total cash payments (£m) £1,090.9 £1,035.6 £1,062.3 £1,112.8 £1,136.3

Operating receipts (£m) £259.8 £226.7 £218.2 £198.7 £194.6

Total net expenditure (£m) £831.1 £808.9 £844.1 £914.1 £941.7

Total Acts of Assistance (thousands) 996.2 1064.1 1000.4 1077.6 1140.6

Criminal Defence Service (CDS)

Criminal: Police stations and magistrates’ courts

Cash payments (£m) £501.9 £529.4 £486.7 £487.3 £470.1

Acts of Assistance (thousands) 1,488.9 1473.8 1378.5 1520.0 1407.7

Criminal: Crown Court and higher courts

Cash payments (£m) £695.5 £647.9 £693.4 £700.1 £738.7

Acts of Assistance (thousands) 121.5 120.7 123.5 124.4 126.1

CDS total



Total net expenditure (£m) £1,196.8 £1,171.4 £1,179.0 £1,186.7 £1,207.3


All publicly funded legal services 4



Total net expenditure (£m) £2,027.9 £1,980.3 £2,023.1 £2,100.8 £2,149.0


Source:Legal Services Commission’s Annual Reports for years shown other than 2009/10 financial information. 2009/10 financial information taken from LSC Review File (2010/11 Q3)Notes:1 Activity amounts are in thousands and expenditure amounts are in millions of pounds2 From 2008/09 the figure for acts of assistance for civil representation has been calculated on a different

basis and therefore not directly comparable with previous years’ figures3 The figures for acts of assistance for ‘Legal Help’ do not include telephone triage acts of assistance. With

those included, the figures for 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2009/10 would have been 1,004.2, 1,163.6 and 1,266.3 thousands respectively

4 The scope of legal work covered by both the CDS and the CLS has changed during the period covered by this table. For details of these scope changes, please see the Legal Services Commission’s annual reports and other related documents: http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/publications.asp

http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/publications.asp


193

Table 11.4Funding of Crown Court representationNumber of applications 1 for public funding filed in the Crown Court, by type of proceeding, 2006–2010


Type of proceeding 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Committed / Sent for trial 2,711 5,126 4,583 3,758 1,864Committed for sentence 7,575 10,903 10,394 9,694 9,769Appeals against magistrates’ court decisions 3,559 5,379 5,346 5,014 1,574

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CREST systemNote:1 Includes a small number of applications for extensions of public funding which were filed and granted in the magistrates’ court

Table 11.5Funding of Crown Court representationDefendants and appellants in the Crown Court, by type of proceeding and type of representation, 2010

Defendants

Type of proceeding

Represented under criminal public funding

Privately / not represented Unknown 1 Total

Committed / Sent for trial 105,141 5,638 2,293 113,072

Committed for sentence 28,554 2,813 6,616 37,983

Appeals against magistrates’ court decisions 4,779 3,751 5,126 13,656

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CREST systemNote:1 Defendants and appellants who do not have their type of representation recorded in CREST are classified as ‘Unknown’


194

Table 11.6Funding of Crown Court representationNumber of applications for public funding filed in the magistrates’ courts for representation in the Crown Court, by type of proceeding, 2006-2010


Type of proceeding 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Committed / Sent for trial 84,637 85,780 94,556 106,246 103,928Committed for sentence 20,728 18,322 20,288 19,307 19,196Appeals against magistrates’ court decisions 4,488 1,941 1,881 1,737 3,252

Source:HM Courts and Tribunals Service CREST system

Annex A

Data sources and data quality

Data sources and data quality | Annex A

196

Annex A: Data sources and data quality

This annex gives brief details of data sources for the figures given in this report, along with a brief discussion on data quality. All data in this edition of Judicial and Court Statistics relates to the calendar year 2010, unless otherwise noted.

Chapter 1: County courts (non-family)

This information has principally been produced using the Management Information System (MIS), a data warehousing facility drawing data directly from court-based administrative systems. Most data shown in the tables have been sourced from the county court administrative system CaseMan, used by court staff for case management purposes. This contains good quality information about the incidence and dates of major events in a case’s progress through the court system. Statistical quality assurance procedures include the identification and removal of duplicate entries for the same event in a case, and checks that data have been collated for all courts to ensure completeness.

The numbers of insolvency petitions, applications for administration orders, administration orders made and order for sale are sourced from manual counts made by court staff. Since April 2009 these have been recorded in the One Performance Truth (OPT) database, a web-based data monitoring system allowing direct inputting of performance data by court staff. Prior to April 2009 they were inputted into the Business Management System, designed for the purpose of monitoring and assessing court workloads. Quality assurance measures are in place to ensure that data are of sufficient quality, including querying with courts where their counts look unusually high or low and obtaining corrected figures if errors are identified.

Table 1.9 shows statistics on unspecified ‘money’ claims, broken into several value ranges. The figures split by amount are counted based on the claim issue fee paid, this indicating the value range of the claim. The issue fee was either not present or didn’t correspond to any of the claim value ranges (sometimes due to exemption or remission) in around four per cent of claims in each year.

The numbers of small claims hearings, trials and repossessions of property by county court bailiffs are sourced from CaseMan. The accuracy of the trial/small claim hearing counts is dependent on court staff entering the correct hearing types and outcome codes onto the system. The accuracy of the repossession figures is dependent on court staff entering the correct warrant outcome codes onto the system. As a result, these statistics are considered to be of lower quality than the other main case event volumes derived from CaseMan.

Judicial and Court Statistics 2010 | Annex A

197

Table 1.14 shows the average time between case issue, allocation to track (for fast and multi-track cases) and the start of a small claims hearing or trial, plus statistics on the duration of small claims hearings and trials. The statistics on average times between the major case milestones are sourced from CaseMan. The statistics on hearing/trial durations are sourced from, respectively, the small claims sampler and the trial sampler. The small claims sampler is a manual form which 29 county courts (from a total of around 216 across England and Wales) are required to complete for three months during the year. The trial sampler is a manual form which all county courts are required to complete for two months during the year. As such, these statistics represent the results for minority subsets, and are not based on all such hearings/trials occurring across England and Wales during the year.

Chapter 2: Family matters

The data on the family related court matters is principally sourced from the county court administrative system FamilyMan, used by court staff for case management purposes and containing good quality information about a case’s progress through the family courts. Some data are also sourced from the HMCTS Performance database. Statistical quality assurance procedures include the identification and removal of duplicate entries for the same case on the administrative systems, and checks that data have been collated for all courts to ensure completeness.

Some points to note about counting rules in the statistics:

A disposal which occurs in one quarter or year may relate to an application •which was initially made in an earlier period.

An application of one type may lead to an order of a different type being •made.

The statistics on matrimonial, ancillary relief and domestic violence •proceedings are counted by case. The statistics on public law and private law proceedings relate to the number of children which are subject to applications: for example if two children are the subject of a single case then the children would be counted separately in the statistics. Different types of orders may be made in respect of different children involved in a case.

Public law and private law Children Act figures are given in Tables 2.1 to 2.4. Data for the Family Proceedings Courts which share premises and administrative systems with county courts is sourced from FamilyMan. Data for other Family Proceedings Courts was provided on electronic summary returns submitted to HMCTS Business Information Division on a monthly basis. The figures shown for Family Proceedings Courts pre 2007 are weighted estimates based on data from a subset of courts. There are known data quality problems with these, which are likely to be an undercount.


198

Following a review of the data compilation methodology for counting public and private law applications, a similar exercise was conducted by Ministry of Justice statisticians to develop a more accurate process for counting public and private law disposals made at county courts, Family Proceedings Courts and the High Court. As a result of this work, a new methodology has been established and introduced as of this volume which incorporates a more robust and well-understood process for calculating the number of disposals, as some steps of the previous compilation methodology were carried out by an automatic process which was not clearly documented or understood. The new methodology is a more effective method for avoiding the double-counting of duplicate entries and compiling the statistics directly from the data and tables held within the family court administrative database.

The statistics shown in Table 2.4 of this report therefore reflect the introduction of this new methodology. Revised figures for the years 2008 and 2009, which were published in previous editions of Judicial and Court Statistics, are given below.

Table 2.4Family mattersMatters affecting children: Number of children in disposals in all tiers of court, by type of disposal and whether Private or Public law, revised figures for 2008 and 2009

Number of children

Year

Public law Private law

Type of disposal Type of disposal

Applications withdrawn

Orders refused

Orders of no order

Orders made

Total disposals

Applications withdrawn

Orders refused

Orders of no order

Orders made

Total disposals

Published 2008 1,198 133 382 22,890 24,603 4,680 640 1,505 127,135 133,9602009 924 133 321 19,573 20,951 4,678 609 1,504 148,683 155,474

Revised 2008 1,014 133 359 21,087 22,593 4,581 638 1,476 129,094 135,7892009 852 133 319 20,011 21,315 4,627 608 1,521 144,577 151,333

It can be seen that the new disposals methodology has led to some, but generally fairly small differences in the figures compared to the old methodology.

Figures on the number of matrimonial proceedings are given in Table 2.5. Statistics on the number of divorces occurring each year in England and Wales are also published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The Ministry of Justice’s divorce statistics are sourced directly from the FamilyMan system, while the ONS data are compiled from ‘D105’ forms used by the courts to record decrees absolute, which are supplied to ONS for compiling the central index of


199

decrees absolute. There are small differences between the number of divorces as recorded by the two sets of statistics: 1.2 per cent for 2009 data. There are believed to be some differences in the quality assurance and compilation processes currently used to produce the statistics. Statisticians at the Ministry of Justice and ONS are working together with HM Courts and Tribunals Service to reconcile these differences as closely as possible. However some of this difference will be accounted for by the fact that the two sets of figures do not count precisely the same cases: for example, the ONS statistics include annulments while the MoJ figures do not; conversely the MoJ data include dissolutions of civil partnerships which are excluded from the ONS counts.

The matrimonial matters statistics for 2009 are subject to revision compared to those published in Table 2.5 of Judicial and Court Statistics 2009. A data inputting error occurred in the data recorded for Bristol county court, which has since been corrected. The revisions, which primarily affected the figure for decrees absolute granted, are outlined in the table.

Matrimonial proceedings Published in JCS 2009 Revised 2009

Dissolution of marriage

Petition filed 132,144 132,148

Decrees nisi 119,244 119,260

Decrees absolute 116,576 115,174

Nullity of marriage

Petition filed 290 291

Decrees absolute 199 198

Judicial separation

Petition filed 360 362

The information on Forced Marriage Protection Orders in Table 2.10 was taken from the HMCTS Performance database. This is a regularly updated, web-based performance system which enables aggregation to national level of returns from individual courts.

Figures for Table 2.11 and 2.12 were provided by the Principal Registry of the Family Division, a division of the High Court.

Adoption

An adoption order made by a court extinguishes the rights, duties and obligations of the natural parents or guardian and vests them in the adopters. On adoption the child becomes, for virtually all purposes in law, the child of its adoptive parents and has the same rights of inheritance of property as any children born to the adoptive parents.


200

The Adoption and Children Act 2002 was implemented on 30 December 2005, replacing the Adoption Act 1976. The key changes resulting from the new act are:

• alignment of adoption law with the Children Act 1989 to ensure that the child’s welfare is the most important consideration when making decisions

• provision for adoption orders to be made in favour of unmarried couples

• the introduction of Special Guardianship Orders, intended to provide permanence for children for whom adoption is not appropriate.

The ONS will publish adoption figures for 2010 later in 2011.

Chapter 3: Magistrates’ courts

Since 2008 the HMCTS Performance Database OPT has been used for collecting data on most aspects of magistrates’ courts activity. This is a web-based performance system which enables aggregation to national level. In most cases the 2008 data is comparable with earlier data, but this does not apply to caseload data. The data sources used within this chapter are briefly discussed below.

Defendants Proceeded Against

The figures presented here are derived from the Completed Proceedings report on the HMCTS Performance Database OPT, which covers all cases dealt with in magistrates’ courts – criminal and otherwise.

The statistics on completed proceedings is populated based on information contained on the Libra MIS and Manual data collection. This contains good quality information about magistrates’ courts’ caseloads. Data provided by the courts must be checked and verified at case level by court staff before being submitted on OPT, and the centrally collated data are subject to further checks including the investigation of apparent anomalies in the data. The data are necessarily subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale data recording system

Prior to 2008, figures were obtained from the Office for Criminal Justice Reform’s Court Proceedings Database, which collected data from a variety of administrative databases held by courts and police forces. Due to a changeover in the data collection system, comparable data were not available for 2008. As the datasets in OPT and the Court Proceedings Database are not identical, results cannot be directly compared. Therefore in this bulletin no comparison is made between the caseload figures for 2008 and earlier years.

The OPT data is case-based, so where a case has more than one offence, only the most serious offence is counted.


201

Timeliness

Information on timeliness of cases proceeded against in the magistrates’ courts is taken from a sample survey, the Time Intervals Survey (TIS). TIS reports on the average (mean) time taken between stages of proceedings for defendants in completed criminal cases in magistrates’ courts. Information on adult indictable/triable-either-way cases and adult charged summary cases are collected in one week of each quarter. Information on adult summonsed summary offences is additionally collected in the first and third quarters. Information on youth defendants in both indictable and summary cases is collected in four weeks of each quarter.

Each sample provides one estimate of the average time taken – different samples would produce different average times. Therefore the margin of error associated with each sample is provided to estimate the likely range within which the ‘true’ average time falls. This 95 per cent confidence interval lies between the sample average +/- the margin of error. The size of the margin of error and width of the confidence interval is dependent on the sample size.

The figures on timeliness are based on defendants: where a case involved more than one defendant, each defendant is considered individually.

Timeliness results are ‘snapshot’ estimates rather than exact measures. They are vulnerable to external factors such as sampling, human error and changes to the composition of cases observed, as any such survey would be. The data undergo various levels of checking: manual verification at input stage by court managers; electronic validation by database software; and manual validation and verification by central HMCTS and MoJ staff.

Further details on TIS are available at:


The figures presented in this chapter are based on the new 19 HMCTS areas, as per the 2010 restructuring of administrative arrangements. Thirteen former areas were collectively merged to form seven new areas and as a result they have undergone amendments following restructuring.

Trials

The figures presented on trials are collected and processed by the Business Information Division in HMCTS. Prior to April 2007 the data was collected on the cracked and ineffective trial monitoring forms. The HMCTS Performance Database ‘was introduced in April 2007 and has been used since then for data collection. The figures are vulnerable to external factors such as human error and missing data due to non-returns.




202

The numbers of effective, cracked and ineffective trials are monitored, as well as the reasons for cracked and ineffective trials. These individual reasons are then grouped.

Enforcement

The figures presented on fine enforcement are from the debt analysis return (DAR) collected and processed by the Business Information Division in HMCTS. The information is collated to provide national figures. OPT has been used for data collection since its introduction in April 2007.

Chapter 4: The Crown Court

This information has been produced using the MIS, a data warehousing facility drawing data directly from court-based administrative systems. Most data shown in the tables have been sourced from the Crown Court administrative system CREST, used by court staff for case management purposes. This contains good quality information about the incidence and dates of major events as each case proceeds in the Crown Court. Statistical quality assurance procedures include the identification and removal of duplicate entries, checks of apparent anomalies and checks for completeness.

The publications Criminal Justice Statistics and Judicial and Court Statistics both contain data on the number of proceedings heard in the Crown Court. The figures are derived from the same core source (the CREST system), but they are not directly comparable as there are known differences between them. These are due to a number of factors, including differences in the data collation methods and counting methodologies used, which reflect different underlying drivers of the analyses being performed. By way of broad illustration, Criminal Justice Statistics counts numbers of defendants and focuses on the final outcomes of criminal court proceedings, whilst Judicial and Court Statistics counts numbers of cases and focuses on flows through the court system. Work is currently under way to investigate and review the differences between the two sets of statistics and their compilation processes with a view to aligning them in the future.

• Definition of final outcome: Judicial and Court Statistics include cases ending as a result of all charges being quashed, discontinued by the prosecution, or where a bench warrant was issued or executed and other outcomes. These outcomes are not counted in Criminal Statistics as the statistics focus on the final outcome of criminal cases and the sentences passed

• Different validation rules

• Timing of data extraction

During 2006, changes were made to the Crown Court centres. A new Crown Court centre was created, Mold, which was a satellite court, became independent, and Warrington, which was independent, became a satellite of


203

Chester. Welsh courts that were satellites of Chester (Caernarvon and Dolgellau) became satellites of Mold. These changes were made in preparation for the change in the regions which made Cheshire a part of the North West and Wales a region on its own. When Mold became independent, the information about the existing cases being dealt with was copied to the new system from Chester. This meant that some cases existed on both systems and data have been adjusted accordingly to avoid duplication in the statistics for this period.

Chapters 5, 6 and 7: High Court and Appellate Courts

All the statistics in these chapters are provided specifically for this publication, and are ultimately sourced based on information contained on a range of administrative systems used by court staff for case management purposes.

The Judicial and Court Statistics compilation team carry out some statistical quality assurance procedures on receipt of the data, such as checks of apparent anomalies.

Chapters 8, 9, 10 and 11: Other Courts and Offices

Information for the Mental Capacity Act, the Office of the Supreme Court, the Judiciary and Assessment of litigation costs, and publicly funded legal services have been produced using the MIS, a data warehousing facility drawing data directly from court-based administrative systems. Most data shown in the tables have been sourced from the Court of Protection, the Office of the Public Guardian, the Office of the Official Solicitor and Public Trustee, Tipstaff, Judicial Communication Office, Supreme Court Costs Office and the Crown Court administrative system CREST. These MIS contain good quality information about a cases progress. Statistical quality assurance procedures include the identification and removal of duplicate entries, checks of apparent anomalies and checks for completeness.

When the Mental Capacity Act 2005 came into force on 1 October 2007, the role and function of the Court of Protection changed, and in addition, the OPG was established. As there was a change in the type of data collected from October 2007, the data reported on previously for the old Court of Protection and Public Guardianship Office is no longer relevant, and therefore figures presented in this report are not fully comparable with figures published in earlier reports.

Judicial and Court Statistics 2010 | Glossary

204

Glossary

This glossary provides a brief description of some of the main terms used in the commentary of this report. For further information, please contact the Justice Statistics Analytical Services division using the details provided in the Explanatory Notes section at the end of this bulletin.


Administration order: Combines a debtor’s debts under certain conditions (see footnote to Table 1.22), enabling the debtor to make regular payments to the court which are then distributed to the various creditors.

Attachment of earnings order: Obliges the debtor’s employer to deduct a set sum from the debtor’s pay and forward it to the court.

Charging order: Enables the creditor to obtain security for the payment against an asset(s), typically property, owned by the debtor.

Claims for recovery of land: Include claims for the repossession of property by a mortgage lender, social or private landlord e.g. where the mortgagee or tenant fails to keep up with mortgage or rental payments.

Order for sale: A court order forcing the debtor to sell an asset(s), typically a property, following a charging order.

Small claim/fast track/multi track cases: If a claim is defended, the next step is for further information to be provided by the parties following which a judge in the county court assigns the case to one of three case management tracks. The ‘small claims track’ is for less complex cases, which generally have claim values of up to £5,000 (or £1,000 for personal injury and housing disrepair matters). The ‘fast track’ is for more complicated cases, generally with a claim value of over £5,000 (or £1,000 for personal injury and housing disrepair matters) and up to £15,000 for proceedings issued before 6 April 2009, otherwise £25,000. The ‘multi track’ is for the most complex cases which are not allocated to the small claim or fast track. Many defended cases are settled by the parties involved, or withdrawn, either before or after allocation to one of these tracks. Around half of cases allocated to the small claims track are resolved at small claims hearings while a much lesser proportion of cases allocated to the fast or multi track are disposed of by trials.

Specified ‘money’ claims: Claims made by an individual, company or organisation for a specified amount of money e.g. £15,000.


205

Third party debt order: Enables the creditor to secure payment by freezing and then seizing money owed or payable by a third party to the debtor.

Unspecified ‘money’ claims: Claims made by an individual, company or organisation for an unspecified amount of money e.g. when claiming for damages/compensation for loss or injury, the amount claimed is limited to £10,000.

Warrant of committal: Enforces a judgment for which the penalty for failure to comply is imprisonment. It authorises the bailiff to arrest the person and deliver them to prison or court.

Warrant of delivery: Enforces a judgment for the return of particular goods or items.

Warrant of execution: To enforce a judgment made where unless the amount due under the warrant is paid, saleable items owned by the debtor can be recovered by the court and sold.

Warrant of possession: To enforce a court order for the repossession of property.

Family matters

Ancillary Relief: This refers to a number of different types of order used to settle financial disputes during divorce proceedings. Examples include: periodical payments, pension sharing, property adjustment and lump sums, and they can be made in favour of either the former spouse or the couple’s children.

Application: The act of asking the court to make an order.

Decree Absolute: This is the final order made in divorce proceedings that can be applied for six weeks and one day after a decree nisi has been given. Once this is received, the couple are no longer legally married and are free to remarry.

Decree Nisi: This is the first order made in divorce proceedings and is given when the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for granting the divorce. It is used to apply for a decree absolute.

Dissolution: The legal termination of a marriage by a decree of divorce, nullity or presumption of death or of a civil partnership by the granting of a dissolution order.

Divorce: This is the legal ending of a marriage.

Judicial Separation: This is a type of order that does not dissolve a marriage but absolves the parties from the obligation to live together. This procedure might, for instance, be used if religious beliefs forbid or discourage divorce.


206

Non-molestation Order: This is a type of civil injunction used in domestic violence cases. It prevents the applicant and/or any relevant children from being molested by someone who has previously been violent towards them. Since July 2007, failing to obey the restrictions of these orders has been a criminal offence for which someone could be arrested.

Nullity: This is where a marriage is ended by being declared not valid. This can either be because the marriage was void (not allowed by law) or because the marriage was voidable (the marriage was legal but there are circumstances that mean it can be treated as if it never took place).

Occupation Order: This is a type of civil injunction used in domestic violence cases. It restricts the right of a violent partner to enter or live in a shared home.

Order: The document bearing the seal of the court recording its decision in a case.

Petition (for divorce): An application for a decree nisi or a judicial separation order.

Private Law: Refers to Children Act 1989 cases where two or more parties are trying to resolve a private dispute. This is commonly where parents have split-up and there is a disagreement about contact with, or residence of, their children.

Public Law: Refers to Children Act 1989 cases where there are child welfare issues and a local authority, or an authorised person, is stepping in to protect the child and ensure they get the care they need.


Adult breach proceedings: Proceedings against an adult defendant (aged 18 or over) who has breached an order which was previously imposed against him/her.

Adult indictable cases: The most serious offences, such as murder and rape, which must be heard at a Crown Court. The involvement of the magistrates’ court is generally brief: a decision is made on whether to grant bail, and other legal issues, such as reporting restrictions, are considered. The case is then passed to the Crown Court.

Adult summary proceedings: The less serious offences, where the defendant is an adult (aged 18 or over). The defendant is not usually entitled to trial by jury, so these cases are disposed of in the magistrates’ courts. Summary offences are subdivided into Summary Motoring and Summary Non-Motoring cases:

Adult summary motoring proceedings: Offences, such as driving whilst •disqualified, speeding and failure to stop.


207

Adult summary non-motoring proceedings: Offences such as TV license •evasion, minor assaults and criminal damage where less than £5000 worth of damage is caused.

Adult triable-either-way cases: These are more serious than summary offences, and can be dealt with either by magistrates or before a judge and jury at the Crown Court. Such offences include dangerous driving and theft and handling stolen goods. A defendant can invoke his/her right to trial in the Crown Court, or the magistrates can decide that a case is sufficiently serious that it should be dealt with in the Crown Court where tougher sentences can be imposed if the defendant is found guilty.

Charge or laying of information: In the Time Intervals Survey, this relates to the date the defendant is first charged at a police station (for charged cases: those where an individual is arrested and formally accused of a crime at a police station) or the date information is laid (for summonsed cases: those where an individual receives a written summons advising that an action has been begun against him/her, and that s/he is required either to appear in person, or to respond in writing, to the court regarding the alleged offence).

‘Cracked’ trial: A description is in the Crown Court section of the Glossary.

Completion: The date a defendant’s case is completed in the magistrates’ courts: either when a final decision is reached or the case is passed to the Crown Court. The Time Intervals Survey only reports on completed cases.

First listing: The date of the first hearing of the case in a magistrates’ court, whether or not the defendant is present.

‘Ineffective’ trial: A description is in the Crown Court section of the Glossary.

Youth proceedings: These are proceedings of any type where the defendant is a youth, aged between 10 and 17.

The Crown Court

The Crown Court is a unitary court which sits in approximately 77 different locations across England and Wales. It deals with serious criminal cases, which can be classified into the following four categories:

(a) Sent for trial cases: Cases sent for trial by the magistrates’ court because they can only be heard by the Crown Court.

(b) Committed for trial cases: Cases which can be heard in either a magistrates’ court or the Crown Court. A defendant can elect to be tried in the Crown Court or a magistrate can decide that a case is sufficiently serious that it should be dealt with in the Crown Court.


208

(c) Committed for sentence cases: Cases transferred to the Crown Court for sentencing where defendants are found guilty in the magistrates’ court. This happens if a magistrate is of the opinion that a greater punishment should be imposed than they are allowed to impose.

(d) Appeals against the decisions of magistrates’ courts.

Bench warrant: A bench warrant is issued for a person deemed to be in contempt of court–usually as a result of that person’s failure to appear at their court appearance. Once a bench warrant has been issued, the case is considered disposed of. Following the apprehension of the person, the bench warrant is executed and the case is reopened.

Circuit: A geographical area where a judge has the judicial authority to decide on cases. The jurisdiction can encompass a range of counties or districts.

Circuit Judge: A judge who normally sits in the county court and/or Crown Court.

Class: Offences are classified according to their seriousness. In the Crown Court, there are three classes of criminal offence; and the class of a case is based on the most serious offence. Class 1 offences are the most serious offences. They include treason and murder and are generally heard by a High Court Judge. Class 2 offences include rape and are usually heard by a Circuit Judge under the authority of the Presiding Judge. Class 3 includes all other offences such as kidnapping, grievous bodily harm and robbery, which are normally heard by a Circuit Judge or Recorder.

‘Cracked’ trial: A trial that does not go ahead on the day and does not need be re-scheduled and the case has reached an outcome. This occurs when an acceptable plea is offered by the defendant or the prosecution offers no evidence against the defendant.

Dealt with: Once a court has reached a judgement against a defendant in respect of all charged offences, that defendant is considered ‘dealt with’.

Defendant: A person or company against whom a charge is brought in court.

Disposal: The completion of a case referred to the Crown Court. In other words, a case is considered disposed of when all defendants involved have been dealt with by the court.

‘Effective’ trial: A trial which begins on the scheduled date and reaches a conclusion.

Guilty plea: A guilty plea is recorded if a defendant either: (i) pleads guilty to all counts; (ii) pleads guilty to some counts and not guilty to others and no jury is


209

sworn in respect of the not guilty counts; or (iii) pleads not guilty to some or all counts but offers a guilty plea to alternatives which are accepted (providing no jury is sworn in respect of other counts). A case is treated as a guilty plea only if pleas of guilty are recorded in respect of all defendants.

Hearing time: The total duration of all hearings heard in the Crown Court for each case including preliminary, main and sentence hearings.

High Court Judge: A judge who sits in the High Court of Justice.

‘Ineffective’ trial: A trial that does not go ahead on the scheduled trial date due to action or inaction by one or more of the prosecution, the defence or the court and a further listing for trial is required.

Receipt: A case referred to the Crown Court.

Recorder: A recorder’s jurisdiction is broadly similar to that of a Circuit Judge, but generally handles less complex or serious matters coming before the court.

Waiting time: The length of time between the date of sending or committal and the start of the substantive Crown Court hearing.

High Court

Admiralty Court: Deals with shipping and maritime disputes, such as ship collisions and damage to cargo.

Bankruptcy: Insolvency (inability to pay debts) of individuals.

Bankruptcy and Companies Court: Deals with cases involving companies and company or individual insolvency / bankruptcy. It primarily deals with matters under the Insolvency Act 1986, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Companies Act 1985 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

Chancery Division: One of the three divisions of the High Court (along with the Queen’s Bench Division and Family Division), and considers matters in relation to trust law, the administration of estates, guardianship and charities.

Commercial Court: Deals with complex cases arising out of business disputes, both national and international, including in relation to international trade and banking.

Comptroller General of Patents: The head of the UK Patent Office.

Family Division: One of the three divisions of the High Court (along with the Chancery Division and Queen’s Bench Division), and is concerned with matrimonial matters and proceedings relating to children or adults who cannot make decisions for themselves.


210

Interlocutory proceedings: Court hearings that take place before the full trial.

Master: Judicial officer of the High Court who primarily deals with procedural matters.

Patents Court: Specialist court which deals with matters concerning intellectual property such as patents and registered designs.

Queen’s Bench Division: One of the three divisions of the High Court (along with the Chancery Division and Family Division), and deals with civil disputes including those relating to breach of contract, personal injuries, commercial cases, libel and slander.

Royal Courts of Justice: Administratively part of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, and is the building in London which houses the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the Probate Service.

Technology and Construction Court: Deals with building and engineering disputes and computer litigation.

Tort: Any private or civil wrong, not including a breach of contract, for which private damages may be claimed.

Writs of fieri facias (fi-fa): Orders an officer to take or sell property belonging to a debtor until the value of the property taken equals the amount of the debt. This is also called a writ of control.

Appellate Courts

Allowed: Appeals given a final result of ‘Allowed’ or ‘Allowed with consent’.

Appeal: A formal request to a higher court that the verdict or ruling of a court be overturned.

Dismissed: Appeals given a final result of ‘Refused’.

Dismissed by Consent: Appeals given a final result of ‘Dismissed with consent’.

Filed: Cases filed/setdown within period.

Habeas corpus: An order requiring a prisoner to be brought to court, to allow the court to determine if their detention is lawful.

Otherwise Disposed: Appeals given a final result of ‘Not our Jurisdiction’, ‘Totally Without Merit’, ‘Varied with Consent’, ‘Other Result’, and ‘Remitted’.

Struck out for failure to provide documents: Appeals given a final result of ‘Dismissal List’ or ‘Struck out’.


211

Terms used in the other chapters of this bulletin

Deputyships: The level of support and supervision the OPG allocates to a Deputy is decided after carrying out an assessment of the individual circumstances of the case.

Judicial sitting days: Sittings by deputy High Court judges include retired Lords Justices, retired High Court judges and Circuit Judges sitting as High Court judges under section 9(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and practitioners sitting as deputy High Court judges under section 9(4) of the Act. Deputy Circuit Judge sittings refer only to sittings by retired Circuit Judges.

Lasting Power of Attorney: The Property and Affairs LPA allows the Donor to appoint an Attorney to manage their finances and property whilst they still have capacity to make decisions for themselves. The Personal Welfare LPA allows the Donor to appoint an Attorney to make decisions on their behalf about their personal welfare. A Personal Welfare LPA can only be used when the Donor lacks the capacity to make these decisions for themselves.

Judicial and Court Statistics 2010 | Explanatory notes

212

Explanatory notes

1. This report provides statistics on activity in the county, family, Crown and magistrates’ courts of England and Wales along with statistics on the work of the High Court, Court of Appeal, UK Supreme Court and some associated offices and agencies. This is the fifth annual court statistics report to be published by the Ministry of Justice. Previous editions were published by the Department for Constitutional Affairs and its predecessors. For the 2005 edition and earlier years it was entitled Judicial Statistics.

2. Quarterly statistics on activity in the county, family, Crown and magistrates’ courts are also published by the Ministry of Justice in the statistical report Court Statistics Quarterly. Statistics for Q1 (January to March) of 2011 are published by the Ministry of Justice at the same time as this edition of Judicial and Court Statistics.

3. Breakdowns of many of the summary figures presented in this bulletin, such as split by case type or by HM Courts and Tribunals Service area, are available on request. Please contact the Justice Statistics Analytical Services division using the details in the Contacts section.

4. Revisions: The statistics published in this bulletin represent final figures for the 2010 calendar year. For the statistics relating to the county courts (non family), family related matters, magistrates’ courts and Crown Courts in chapters 1 to 4, provisional figures for each quarter of 2010 (and, when aggregated, for the calendar year) have already been published in editions of Court Statistics Quarterly. As these statistics are primarily sourced for administrative databases, they are, as standard, revised to take account of any late amendments to the records. This report presents the final figures for 2010, which incorporate revisions to the previously-published statistics to account for any such late amendments. The 2010 statistics would not usually be revised further to reflect any future updates to administrative sources. The revised statistics for 2010 are also included within the Q2 (January to March) 2011 edition of Court Statistics Quarterly.

Judicial and Court Statistics 2010 | Explanatory notes

213

Symbols and conventions

The following symbols have been used throughout the tables in this bulletin.

0 = Nil

- = Not applicable

n/a = Not available

(r) = Revised data

(p) = Provisional data

* = Averages are not shown where there are fewer than 20 cases in a given year

Judicial and Court Statistics 2010 | Contacts

214

Contacts

Press enquiries on the contents of this bulletin should be directed to the Ministry of Justice or HM Courts Service press offices:

Peter MorrisTel: 020 3334 3531Email: [email protected]

Mark KramTel: 020 3334 6697Email: [email protected]

Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to the Justice Statistics Analytical Services division of the Ministry of Justice:

Iain BellChief StatisticianMinistry of Justice7th floor102 Petty FranceLondonSW1H 9AJTel: 020 3334 3737Email: [email protected]

General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: [email protected]

General information about the official statistics system of the UK is available from www.statistics.gov.uk





www.statistics.gov.uk

© Crown copyright Produced by the Ministry of Justice

Alternative formats are available on request from [email protected]


Documents

Judicial and Court Statistics 2010 · High Court. All family matters in England and Wales are dealt with at either Family : Proceedings Courts (which are part of the magistrates’